According to my experience over the last ten years, it is not the act being the issue, it’s the people interpreting it. Any overhaul should address arbitrary interpretation. When we talk about resources, we should be discussing effects on land, air, water predominantly, not the color of a facade, some building texture or paving. This is happening right now, where council believes they can dictate architecture and have their personal flavor of development.If they want to control development, a development plan or structure plan is choice, not subjective interpretations and personal opinions.
Signalled as “the most significant overhaul to the Act since its inception 25 years ago”, the Government is planning 10 major changes to address increasing concerns on housing demand and affordability, employment and export growth, infrastructure development and managing natural hazards.
Developers and designers need to have more clarity on what they can design and develop. It cannot be that a building consent takes a month and a resource consent a year, just because requirements are made up as we go along. Diversions from district plan rules should be handled as part of a discretionary building consent, not a resource consent. A resource consent should really be dealing with matters relating to… well – resources. via Kensington Swan Lawyers – Significant amendments to the Resource Management Act signalled by Government.