Reinstating the Purpose of Planning within New Zealand's Resource Management Act

Abstract

This paper reviews recent changes in the direction of planning in New Zealand within the framework of the Resource Management Act (RMA). It is argued that the RMA enacted in 1991 is potentially a progressive planning statute. Its legislative intent embraces sustainability ethical values and norms as a basis for decision making in the context of a property owning democracy. However, the potential of the Act has been compromised during the last 10 years by attempts by the previous government and New Right interest groups to force a narrower interpretation of the Act's purpose as stated in Section 5. These attempts have been challenged by recent Court decisions.

HKSAR's nature conservation policy – a new formulation for an old problem?

“…This act replaced with a single comprehensive system 78 existing pieces of legislation and amended more, which, as in Hong Kong, had grown up piecemeal to deal with matters of land, planning, environment, etc. The overriding purpose of the RMA is "to promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources" and is the prime goal of all decision-making conducted under the Act (Memon, 2002;Margerum, 1995;Michaels and Furuseth, 1997). A similar system could address HK's need to conserve biodiversity, yet also accommodate development through a single, logical process of general environmental management.…”

Urban Growth Management in Christchurch

“…In conjunction with the restructuring of the state sector (including the role of local and regional government), and underpinned by a libertarian ideology, the Act significantly reshaped the practice of environmental planning. The Act's provisions reflected a strong determination on the part of the government of the time for a deregulated land market, a move away from central and local state participation in promoting and guiding urban development and a preference for economic instruments, rather than state regulation, to achieve desired environmental outcomes (Memon, 2002).…”

“…Under the previous National government, the Ministry for Environment staff discouraged local authorities from adopting regulatory policies to manage urban growth. The Ministry's submissions to district and regional councils on the first generation of proposed plans and its appeals to the Environment Court reflected the strongly non-interventionist political views of the former Minister for Environment (Memon, 2002).…”

“…During the post 1989 reform era, the regional planning role of Environment Canterbury has tended to be dominated by its natural resource management functions such as flood control and pest management which it inherited from the former catchment boards (Douglas and Memon, 2002)." The dislocations arising from central and local government restructuring in the 1980s and 1990s have resulted in a lack of commitment to regional planning embracing the urban environment, regional transportation, social and regional development initiatives within a sustainable development framework (Parliamentary Commissioner for Environment, 1998;Thorns, 2000 and.…”

“…Section 9 (permissive focus) and Section 32 (which discourages regulation). However, this stance has k e n questioned by the Environment Court (Skelton and Memon, 2002). T h u b , for example, the Travis Swamp wertland was excluded from the green belt in 1985.…”