diff options
| -rw-r--r-- | assignment3/background.tex | 59 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | assignment3/references.bib | 10 |
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, |