reference reading 4.3

2 files changed, 47 insertions, 22 deletions

diff --git a/assignment3/background.tex b/assignment3/background.tex
index 2559506..eb98084 100644
--- a/assignment3/background.tex
+++ b/assignment3/background.tex
@@ -60,7 +60,7 @@ assessment of environmental effects has been carried out and
 submitted.
 
 
-\subsubsection{The impact of reviews and notification}
+\subsubsection{The impact of reviews}
 
 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
@@ -76,27 +76,42 @@ 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 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.
+RMA \parencite{performance}. In earlier case studies, the councils
+estimated that further information was requested (either formally
+under section 92 or informally) from at least half of all application
+before the application was accepted \parencite{reading4.3}. It is
+doubtful whether poor quality 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.
+
+It is of utmost importance that an assessment of environmental effects
+be detailed enough and understandable for interested members of the
+public to enable them to make submissions on the proposal without
+first having to engage in investigations
+themselves \parencite{reading4.3}.  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 make a submission on a notified application have
+legal standing to appeal a council's resource consent decision to the
+Environment Court.  As revealed by 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 not to notify may not have been justified.
+According to a report by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the
+Environment, complaints about councils' decisions not to notify
+applications are rather common and are often upheld due to the fact
+that local authorities ``failed to carry out sufficient enquiries
+before deciding that there were no affected parties or that it would
+be unreasonable for the applicant to obtain written approval from
+affected parties'' \parencite{reading4.3}.
 
 % beyond the requirements of the Fourth Schedule there are few
 % guidelines to assess the quality of an AEE \parencite{miller2010implementing}.
diff --git a/assignment3/references.bib b/assignment3/references.bib
index 327681a..e45b15f 100644
--- a/assignment3/references.bib
+++ b/assignment3/references.bib
@@ -135,6 +135,16 @@ Matthew Bennett and Claire Gibson},
 Change Institute (IGCI), Second PUCM Report to Government}
 }
 
+@techreport{reading4.3,
+  title={Assessment of environmental effects ({AEE}): administration by three territorial authorities},
+  author={{Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment}},
+  year={1995},
+  pages={29--47},
+  publisher={Wellington, New Zealand: Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment},
+  url={http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/rma/everyday/consent-consultation/}
+}
+
+
 % %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
 
 @inbook{mitigation,