Proposed planning system to shift costs
WELLINGTON: Changes to the Resource Management Act are likely to shift the balance of who pays for the planning system from the private to the public sector.
An assessment by the Ministry for the Environment of the exposure draft of the Natural and Built Environments Bill — the first of a series of legislative changes which will reform New Zealand’s planning framework — was released on Monday.
It found that, overall, the system would lead to lower costs in the planning and consent system, reducing the overall cost of planning by about $85 million a year.
The ministry estimated the current system process costs were about $1.2 billion a year, about two thirds of the cost being faced by users, the rest by government.
But both local and central government were likely to face added costs overall, more than offset by even larger savings to the private sector.
‘‘The increased investment from government would be a shift in ‘who pays’ for the [resource management] system from private users to the public sector,’’ the ministry’s regulatory impact assessment said.
‘‘Such a shift may be appropriate, given the public good benefits generated by a wellfunctioning RM system,’’ it said.
It estimated central government would face added costs of $19 million to $49 million a year, the largest component being about $5 million a year in funding to assist iwi and hapu organisations to participate in the resource management process.
The ministry was also expected to take on about an extra 30 staff ‘‘to undertake ongoing monitoring of targets and environmental limits’’, which would cost about $4.5 million a year.
Local government costs would increase by about a net $43 million overall a year across the country, the ministry said. Added costs in monitoring and enforcement would be offset by expectations that clearer planning rules would lead to lower costs for commissioners and litigation.
Those applying for consents, meanwhile, would reap savings of about $150 million a year.
The bulk of the savings would come from fewer applications being made due to clearer rules, including a cut in those hoping to exploit uncertainty.
‘‘In the current system, uncertainty in plans generates more consents, because some applicants will be willing to submit contentious consents based on a perceived chance of success that exists due to plan uncertainty. As plans become more certain, users can better judge which activities are likely to receive consent.’’
Overall, the cost to users of the planning system was estimated to fall by about 19%, while the costs of central government would more than double and local government costs would rise by 11%.
Environment Minister David Parker released the exposure draft of the Natural and Built Environments Bill at the end of June; it has been referred to a select committee in order to provide public feedback before legislation is introduced to the House. —