shuffle shuffle

1 files changed, 59 insertions, 48 deletions

diff --git a/assignment3/background.tex b/assignment3/background.tex
index 5471cc7..7ce59c6 100644
--- a/assignment3/background.tex
+++ b/assignment3/background.tex
@@ -6,12 +6,16 @@ In New Zealand development activities are regulated through regional
 and district plans.  These plans are prepared by the regional and
 district councils in a long process that provides ample opportunity
 for consultation with the public and industry representatives
-alike \parencite{miller2010implementing}.  For any activity not
-explicitly permitted by the plans and policy statements a resource
-consent must be obtained \parencite{fookes}.  Any development activity
-that is advertised as resulting in significant positive impacts on the
-region---the type of activity that this analysis focuses on---is very
-likely to also require resource consents.
+alike \parencite{miller2010implementing}.
+
+% TODO: a little more on how consultation is used during plan design?
+
+For any activity not explicitly permitted by the plans and policy
+statements a resource consent must be obtained \parencite{fookes}.
+Any development activity that is advertised as resulting in
+significant positive impacts on the region---the type of activity that
+this analysis focuses on---is very likely to also require resource
+consents.
 
 After checking the appropriate district or regional plans to confirm
 whether a resource consent is required, the applicant is to prepare a
@@ -29,6 +33,8 @@ general requirement under the RMA.
 
 - any results of consultation must be included in the AEE
 
+refer to http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/rma/everyday/consent-consultation/
+
 
 \subsection{Review and notification}
 
@@ -57,33 +63,52 @@ affected people refuse to provide written approval before the
 assessment of environmental effects has been carried out and
 submitted.
 
+
+\subsubsection{The impact of reviews and notification}
+
 The review of the application and the AEE and the decision whether to
 notify the application or not (and to what degree) is the first step
 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.  A misleading AEE will be very
-difficult for the public to challenge on technical grounds.  If,
-additionally, the application is not considered to have more than
-minor impacts and is thus not publicly notified, it becomes very
-difficult for members of the public to affect the outcome of the
-resource consent decision. According to \textcite{mediation}, only
-those parties who made a submission on a notified application have
-legal standing to appeal a council's resource consent decision to the
-Environment Court.
-
-A review of consent processing performance of selected councils
-conducted by the Ministry for the Environment revealed that councils
-rarely reject subpar resource consent applications as permitted by
-section 88(3) of the RMA; much more often faulty applications are
-accepted and gradually improved through requests for additional
-information in line with section 92 of the
+members of the general public.
+
+An investigation into the consent processing performance of selected
+councils conducted by the Ministry for the Environment revealed that
+councils rarely reject subpar resource consent applications as
+permitted by section 88(3) of the RMA; much more often, faulty
+applications are accepted and gradually improved through requests for
+additional information, a mechanism provided by section 92 of the
 RMA \parencite{performance}. It is doubtful whether poor quality
-assessments significantly improve through this course of action. It is
-clear, however, that this approach not only delays the processing of
-resource consents, but also increases the likelihood of poor quality
-applications slipping through.
+assessments significantly improve as a result of these repeated
+requests. It is conceivable, however, that this approach not only
+delays the processing of resource consents, but also increases the
+likelihood of poor quality applications slipping through.
+
+A misleading or unintelligible AEE will be very difficult for the
+public to challenge on technical grounds.  If, additionally, the
+application is not considered to have more than minor impacts and is
+thus not publicly notified, it becomes very difficult for members of
+the public to affect the outcome of the resource consent
+decision. According to \textcite{mediation}, only those parties who
+made a submission on a notified application have legal standing to
+appeal a council's resource consent decision to the Environment Court.
+According to the 2010/11 survey of local authorities the New Zealand
+\textcite{rma-survey} carries out every two years, only about four per
+cent of all resource consents in the two-year period were publicly
+notified. Unfortunately, there is little data on what proportion of
+the remaining 96 per cent are small-scale applications submitted by
+private people and how many are larger projects where the decision
+whether to notify or not may possibly be contentious.
+
+% TODO: wording: contested? subject to debate?
+
+% beyond the requirements of the Fourth Schedule there are few
+% guidelines to assess the quality of an AEE \parencite{miller2010implementing}.
+
+
+\subsubsection{The importance of plan quality and coverage}
 
 Often the quality and coverage of activities in the council's plan
 determine whether or not the expected effects of a development
@@ -105,19 +130,18 @@ also approved without public notification.
 While it is possible to amend plans and there are established
 mechanisms for extensive consultation in the plan creation process, it
 is clearly not feasible to modify plans on a case-by-case basis.
-According to the 2010/11 survey of local authorities the New Zealand
-\textcite{rma-survey} carries out every two years, only about four per
-cent of all resource consents in the two-year period were publicly
-notified. Unfortunately, there is little data on what proportion of
-the remaining 96 per cent are small-scale applications submitted by
-private people and how many are larger projects where the decision
-whether to notify or not is possibly contentious.
+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.
+
+%TODO: plan quality is the subject of the PUCM Research Programme [confessions]
 
 %TODO: report on the sad state of council plans that have had
 % provisionary plans for years and the process dragged on for many years.
 
 
-
 \subsection{Submissions, hearings and the officer's report}
 
 For those applications that the responsible council has determined
@@ -133,20 +157,7 @@ applicant. The report is hence strongly influenced by the applicant's
 input.
 
 
-\section{Consultation and participation in EIA and the RMA}
-
-refer to http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/rma/everyday/consent-consultation/
-
-
-\subsection{AEE review and notification}
-
-%beyond the requirements of the Fourth Schedule,
-%however, there are few guidelines to assess the quality of an
-%AEE \parencite{miller2010implementing}.
-
-% TODO: review course readings to find problems
-
-\subsection{The implementation gap}
+\section{The implementation gap}
 
 \begin{quote}
   there was a gap between the environmental management techniques