summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorrekado <rekado@elephly.net>2013-06-17 21:05:01 +0800
committerrekado <rekado@elephly.net>2013-06-17 21:05:01 +0800
commit709b52deb82083ca697a2ac2081dc8b658d3dfa3 (patch)
treea555d4d0ebfd6bd857a16abd4e1e4ef03c14dccb
parent2a6c0314803cc5bd327027405e6007391aa6fade (diff)
quote pce
-rw-r--r--assignment3/background.tex14
1 files changed, 12 insertions, 2 deletions
diff --git a/assignment3/background.tex b/assignment3/background.tex
index eb98084..79703dd 100644
--- a/assignment3/background.tex
+++ b/assignment3/background.tex
@@ -68,7 +68,17 @@ in the resource consent process that Grinlinton referred to in his
statement. A council that---for whatever reasons---fails to reject
applications with poor or deliberately misleading assessments
effectively off-loads the burden to challenge the application to
-members of the general public.
+members of the general public. The \textcite[p 41]{reading4.3}
+stresses that
+
+\begin{quote}
+ [t]he full evaluation of AEE information provided by applicants is
+ one of the most critical aspects of the entire resource consent
+ process. The applicant is responsible for a full assessment of the
+ proposed activity, but such responsibility is meaningless unless a
+ council provides guidance and, where necessary, forms judgements on
+ the adequacy of this assessment.
+\end{quote}
An investigation into the consent processing performance of selected
councils conducted by the Ministry for the Environment revealed that
@@ -143,7 +153,7 @@ Under the assumptions of the RMA, plans are the foundations on which
resource consent decisions are made to achieve sustainable
development; they were not meant to be used as a tool to block
individual proposals and hence do not support quick amendment
-processes.
+procedures.
%TODO: plan quality is the subject of the PUCM Research Programme [confessions]