The NZAIA submission on 'Better Urban Planning' by Gillian Stewart
NZAIA was responsible for one of the 70 submissions to the New Zealand Productivity Commission on its draft report on urban planning processes. Faced by a report comprising 413 pages, ranging across diverse and complex issues, developing a useful submission is a daunting prospect . However, as an organisation we have a clear role with respect to impact assessment, so the main purpose of our submission was to support the continuing role of impact assessment in future urban planning provisions, and where possible bring about significant improvement in practices of impact assessment in urban planning. This would ensure that decisions about, and implementation of, plans for housing and business growth and associated infrastructure will result in more sustainable social, cultural, economic and environmental outcomes.
Our submission focused on a number of broad issues raised in the draft report. First, we noted that the RMA has at its core the “effects-based” approach that mandates the use of impact assessment at all levels of decisions-making under the Act, so we strongly support the retention of this perspective in whatever future form(s) of planning/resource management legislation emerge to deal with urban planning in particular.
Second, we feel there is a particular gap in the use of impact assessment at the policy and plan levels. Recommendation 12.1 in the draft report states:
A future planning system should place greater emphasis on rigorous analysis of policy options and planning proposals. This will require councils to build their technical capability in areas such as environmental science and economics. It would also require strengthening soft skills – particularly those needed to engage effectively with iwi/Māori.
We supported this and suggested that greater consideration needs to be given to the use of strategic environmental assessment (SEA) as a more robust and internationally recognised approach to carrying out such assessments.SEA methods can be integrated with policy and plan development, in contrast to the s32 analysis conducted after the proposal has been formulated.
Related to this, the draft report asks how cumulative effects might be addressed:
Q8.2: Would a greater emphasis on adaptive management assist in managing cumulative environmental effects in urban areas? What are the obstacles to using adaptive management? How could adaptive management work in practice?
In our view, cumulative effects are best as part of strategic environmental assessment during policy and/or plan development. The potential for cumulative impacts can be explored while options are still open, and policies and plans developed that incorporate strategies to avoid or mitigate their occurrence. Adaptive management is one strategy but one that we feel should only be used in the context of a wider understanding of the source of the cumulative effects that comes from an SEA approach.
The draft report contained the following statement in its finding F7.7 (bullet 3) with respect to urban development and the use of consent processes:
….an overemphasis in the implementation of the RMA on managing or avoiding adverse effects, which does not sit well with the dynamic nature of urban environments.
We did not agree with this finding and our third point was that we feel the emphasis on adverse effects is appropriate, but that the problem is more to do with the poor practice that comes from lack of understanding of the AEE process, especially among developers, but also among other participants in consent processes. This can be addressed by better council guidance on the process, and greater emphasis on early discussions with potentially affected parties. The recommendations of the then Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, in 1995, on how to improve AEE administration by councils are still very relevant as they set out sensible steps to engage interested parties sooner, and to identify and address key issues before they become contentious during the formal consent process.
Fourth, NZAIA did agree with Recommendation 7.6 (bullet 4):
…encourage the use of tools that ensure the full spectrum of interests is understood in council decision-making processes, and that allow the public to understand the trade-offs involved in decisions.
We see impact assessment methods being central to this toolkit, from physical and ecological impact assessment to social, cultural and health impact assessment: all these can be used at policy, plan and project levels, and they feed into an integrated understanding of the implications and especially trade-offs that proposals might imply for local communities.
Our fifth point was to note that the Colmar Brunton opinion survey of councils, one of the background reports commissioned by the NZPC, identified economic impact assessment as the main “capability gap” of council staff respondents. We also noted that in the original report of that survey, councils were not asked to nominate particular skill areas but were provided with a pre-determined list, which included “economic impact assessment” but no other forms of impact assessment, and nothing relating to s32 analyses per se. It was not clear to us just what councils are calling for, since “economic impact assessment” is not a mainstream phrase in the impact assessment community that we represent: one that deals with ex ante analyses (i.e. looking ahead to identify the potential “unintended consequences” that otherwise bedevil policy and plan makers). We assume it meant that the council staff would like more skills in economic evaluation within their s32 analyses (which might suggest s32 evaluations were being viewed quite narrowly, which would be a concern). If the aim was to identify key capability gaps, we felt a proper needs assessment should have been carried out.
Finally, we were pleased to that cultural impact assessment is given some prominence in the discussion paper. NZAIA fully supports the use of this method, but also recognises the problems iwi often have in providing resources to support its use. It might be useful to have a national initiative to explore the development and resourcing of cultural impact assessment, and to encourage the growth of a practitioner community that would work with iwi and hapu to produce these assessments. NZAIA would be happy to support such a move.
Our submission focused on a number of broad issues raised in the draft report. First, we noted that the RMA has at its core the “effects-based” approach that mandates the use of impact assessment at all levels of decisions-making under the Act, so we strongly support the retention of this perspective in whatever future form(s) of planning/resource management legislation emerge to deal with urban planning in particular.
Second, we feel there is a particular gap in the use of impact assessment at the policy and plan levels. Recommendation 12.1 in the draft report states:
A future planning system should place greater emphasis on rigorous analysis of policy options and planning proposals. This will require councils to build their technical capability in areas such as environmental science and economics. It would also require strengthening soft skills – particularly those needed to engage effectively with iwi/Māori.
We supported this and suggested that greater consideration needs to be given to the use of strategic environmental assessment (SEA) as a more robust and internationally recognised approach to carrying out such assessments.SEA methods can be integrated with policy and plan development, in contrast to the s32 analysis conducted after the proposal has been formulated.
Related to this, the draft report asks how cumulative effects might be addressed:
Q8.2: Would a greater emphasis on adaptive management assist in managing cumulative environmental effects in urban areas? What are the obstacles to using adaptive management? How could adaptive management work in practice?
In our view, cumulative effects are best as part of strategic environmental assessment during policy and/or plan development. The potential for cumulative impacts can be explored while options are still open, and policies and plans developed that incorporate strategies to avoid or mitigate their occurrence. Adaptive management is one strategy but one that we feel should only be used in the context of a wider understanding of the source of the cumulative effects that comes from an SEA approach.
The draft report contained the following statement in its finding F7.7 (bullet 3) with respect to urban development and the use of consent processes:
….an overemphasis in the implementation of the RMA on managing or avoiding adverse effects, which does not sit well with the dynamic nature of urban environments.
We did not agree with this finding and our third point was that we feel the emphasis on adverse effects is appropriate, but that the problem is more to do with the poor practice that comes from lack of understanding of the AEE process, especially among developers, but also among other participants in consent processes. This can be addressed by better council guidance on the process, and greater emphasis on early discussions with potentially affected parties. The recommendations of the then Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, in 1995, on how to improve AEE administration by councils are still very relevant as they set out sensible steps to engage interested parties sooner, and to identify and address key issues before they become contentious during the formal consent process.
Fourth, NZAIA did agree with Recommendation 7.6 (bullet 4):
…encourage the use of tools that ensure the full spectrum of interests is understood in council decision-making processes, and that allow the public to understand the trade-offs involved in decisions.
We see impact assessment methods being central to this toolkit, from physical and ecological impact assessment to social, cultural and health impact assessment: all these can be used at policy, plan and project levels, and they feed into an integrated understanding of the implications and especially trade-offs that proposals might imply for local communities.
Our fifth point was to note that the Colmar Brunton opinion survey of councils, one of the background reports commissioned by the NZPC, identified economic impact assessment as the main “capability gap” of council staff respondents. We also noted that in the original report of that survey, councils were not asked to nominate particular skill areas but were provided with a pre-determined list, which included “economic impact assessment” but no other forms of impact assessment, and nothing relating to s32 analyses per se. It was not clear to us just what councils are calling for, since “economic impact assessment” is not a mainstream phrase in the impact assessment community that we represent: one that deals with ex ante analyses (i.e. looking ahead to identify the potential “unintended consequences” that otherwise bedevil policy and plan makers). We assume it meant that the council staff would like more skills in economic evaluation within their s32 analyses (which might suggest s32 evaluations were being viewed quite narrowly, which would be a concern). If the aim was to identify key capability gaps, we felt a proper needs assessment should have been carried out.
Finally, we were pleased to that cultural impact assessment is given some prominence in the discussion paper. NZAIA fully supports the use of this method, but also recognises the problems iwi often have in providing resources to support its use. It might be useful to have a national initiative to explore the development and resourcing of cultural impact assessment, and to encourage the growth of a practitioner community that would work with iwi and hapu to produce these assessments. NZAIA would be happy to support such a move.