diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'assignment3/background.tex')
| -rw-r--r-- | assignment3/background.tex | 41 |
1 files changed, 36 insertions, 5 deletions
diff --git a/assignment3/background.tex b/assignment3/background.tex index 36eceba..f2b76c2 100644 --- a/assignment3/background.tex +++ b/assignment3/background.tex @@ -59,6 +59,28 @@ affected people refuse to provide written approval before the assessment of environmental effects has been carried out and submitted. +% TODO: easy to buy off directly affected people -- outcome is not sustainable + +%- side agreements: applicants can buy consent by paying directly +% affected people, incurring poor environmental outcomes for the +% community or future generations. \parencite{PCE1998} +% +% +% \begin{quote} +% The environmental risks associated with side agreements depend on +% the council’s knowledge and treatment of any contractual +% arrangements by consent applicants. Good practice by the consent +% authority can help to minimise these risks. For example, where a +% private agreement does not necessarily result in effects on the +% environment being mitigated, consent authorities should impose +% appropriate conditions to mitigate these effects. +% \end{quote} \parencite[][p 9]{PCE1998} +% +% +%- wider example may be the golden link mine where the applicant +% promised to do unrelated work for the community to secure approval + + \subsubsection{The importance of reviews} @@ -121,7 +143,9 @@ 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}. +affected parties'' \parencite{reading4.3}. In fact, according to the +\textcite{ME1069}, the number of formal objections against consent +decisions follows an upward trend in recent years. % beyond the requirements of the Fourth Schedule there are few % guidelines to assess the quality of an AEE \parencite{miller2010implementing}. @@ -146,10 +170,10 @@ zone, the application could not be rejected on grounds of non-compliance. A second application for a scaled-down proposal was 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. -Under the assumptions of the RMA, plans are the foundations on which +While it is possible to amend plans and established mechanisms for +extensive consultation exist in the plan creation process, it is +clearly not feasible to modify plans on a case-by-case basis. 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 @@ -214,6 +238,13 @@ have been publicly notified, members of the public can make submissions to challenge---or express support for---the application. % TODO + +At the example of three case studies, \textcite{reading5.6} argues +that access to information and the ability to present a position +professionally is a precondition to successful participation in the +consultation stages of the resource consent process. + + % Officer's report and decision-making. - in the case of public notification, council prepares a report based on submissions, the AEE and additional evidence provided by the |