NZ Institute Of Landscape Architects Respond To RMA Reform 'Blueprint'

This week’s ‘high level’ report from the Expert Advisory Group on Resource Management Reform presents as many questions as answers, says the New Zealand Institute of Landscape Architects Tuia Pito Ora (NZILA).

“The path to reform embodies many challenges and remains a work in progress,” says Shannon Bray, chair of the NZILA’s Environmental Legislation Committee.

“In its 119 pages the report certainly lays out a blueprint for adopting levels of national uniformity that don’t currently exist. In terms of the push to create two new Acts, we have been here before under the previous Government - but with less narrowing of the scope or mechanism for objections to developments, more retention of local input to decisions and without the added introduction of compensation for regulatory takings.

“As a body for landscape architects our primary concern as a community of practitioners, will always be to seek to reconcile human needs with the natural environment and its systems, including restorative practices.

Shannon Bray: “There are some features of the proposed reform that may enable speedier tracks for land use developments, but that shouldn’t come at the expense of losing the collective value and priority we place on achieving a balance of environmental enhancement, heritage values, best design outcomes and Te Tiriti partnership obligations.

"Whether they are property owners or not, all members of a local community have expectations and ideals for the landscapes they are connected with. The New Zealand environment, and the landscape it creates, is significantly important to us, to our international visitors and our film industry, as well as underpinning how we market our primary production to the world.

“When the next phase of RMA reform begins we will be looking for more detail on how the framework for place-based environmental protection tools such as outstanding natural features and landscapes (ONFLs), significant natural areas (SNAs) and natural character is shaped, and ideally broadened so that we don’t have inconsistent understandings of how landscapes interact and overlap.

"We agree with the EAG that the National Policy Direction processes under each Act must be developed with a view to ensuring they are aligned with one another, and that the overall weight given to protecting biodiversity, landscapes and other important natural values isn’t diminished or lost sight of. The Acts must speak to each other.

“But we have substantial concerns that consideration of effects on landscape is not being fully considered. We disagree with the recommendation to omit the regulation of landscape and amenity effects within the reform.

"The inherent connection people have with the environment – what it means to them and their identity, alongside its memorability, perceptual qualities and social-environmental values - is key to community wellbeing. We think both Acts must be more bold in describing the important relationship people have with the environment around them. It’s how we personify its elements and character.

“As such, we agree that a rapid transition to the new ‘system’ has fish-hooks, especially if the pace and positioning of the reforms undermines well-considered final outcomes for planning instruments. These are risks that the NZILA will be engaging on with our counterparts at the Resource Management Law Association and NZ Planning Institute.

“Lastly it is interesting to note that the minority, or dissenting, report from EAG member Paul Melville raised questions about decision-taking on highly productive land, in regard to opening up more land use for housing compared to food production. Coincidentally some of the apparent concerns are going to be a timely focus of our NZILA Firth Wānanga in Hastings in May this year, where our general theme is edible landscapes”.

© Scoop Media