Replacing the Resource Management Act is a job that shouldn't wait any longer

Thursday, 30 March 2017

The Productivity Commission says the Resource Management Act is constraining development while failing to protect the environment properly.

OPINION: Business has been concerned about the Resource Management Act (RMA) for a long time.

Anyone wanting to grow a business, build a building or install some infrastructure will at some stage need a consent from local government, working under the rules of the RMA.

Unfortunately those rules are not working – for communities, the environment or our development needs.

BusinessNZ chief executive Kirk Hope is calling for the RMA to be replaced - quickly.

Some of our most pressing problems – housing shortages, high house prices, costly business expansion, congested roads and lack of good infrastructure – stem largely from the RMA.

* Million-dollar houses more common around New Zealand

* Productivity Commission to turn eyes to urban planning

* Why Christchurch houses have become more affordable

* Increasing land supply isn't enough to solve Auckland's housing crisis**

This is because planning regulations developed by local government under the RMA have in many cases become overly complicated and difficult, constraining business from growing.

A good example is the urban boundary around Auckland. Planners working under RMA rules have decreed development may only take place inside an artificial boundary around Auckland's squeezed isthmus area. This has pushed up the price of houses and sections inside the boundary, making them unaffordable for many.

Another example is the kind of district plan now operating in many cities and towns that dictates what you may or may not do with your own property - rules requiring sitting rooms to face the street, fences of a certain height or approved colours for letterboxes.

The RMA does not direct planners to restrict boundaries and impose trivial conditions, but it allows them to - and that's how we become over regulated.

This week the Productivity Commission said it was time to replace the Resource Management Act. It has analysed the problems caused by the RMA and concluded that we could do much better.

The Commission has made recommendations for a replacement act. First, it suggests separate objectives for the natural and the built environment - a good recommendation.

The natural environment needs protection. We want planning laws to protect the water, soil, air and vegetation in the natural environment where appropriate.

The built environment, on the other hand, needs enablement. Here we want business, housing and infrastructure development to be enabled (of course within appropriate environmental standards).

Under the RMA, a big problem is the protective - not enabling - approach being applied to the built environment. A protective approach to the built environment simply leads to more and more restrictions being placed on development, as we have seen.

A new act with separate objectives and principles for the natural and built environments would be a great improvement. Another significant recommendation is for clearer wording.

Many of the problems evident in cities today have arisen because of broad, unclear wording in the RMA that allows planners to regulate or over regulate as they see fit, within their own understanding of what the RMA requires.

The Productivity Commission recommends a new act should have clearly defined objectives to give planners clearer parameters to work within. In a new act, the objectives should also be appropriately circumscribed.

Under the RMA local government has a broad mandate - for example to enable everyone's 'social, economic, and cultural well-being and health and safety'.

More narrow objectives, focused on local government's core responsibilities, would be welcome, especially by communities wanting better infrastructure including roads and water and sewerage connections.

These are just the basic recommendations made by the Productivity Commission for replacing the RMA - there are many others covering planning, housing, infrastructure and the environment.

It will be a significant undertaking to write a new act because of the wide range of matters involved. Other acts will need amending as part of the process, including the Local Government Act and Land Transport Act.

But it is a job that is much needed and shouldn't wait any longer. Let's hope the Government heeds the Commission's recommendations and moves quickly to replace the RMA.

Kirk Hope is the chief executive of BusinessNZ.