The Unitary Plan contains rules that limit subdivision and development and protect native forest and trees. In some parts of the ranges, subdivision is prohibited in order to protect outstanding landscapes.
All these controls have evolved over many years, as a result of sustained advocacy and broad recognition that the western flank of the Auckland region is not just another space awaiting housing development – it’s a precious taonga that needs care.
The bills completely undermine this consensus.
First, there is no mention of the Heritage Area Act in the bills. This is a significant oversight (or outrageous decision) because it removes the legal link between that act and the rules in the Unitary Plan.
Under the Resource Management Act (RMA), Auckland Council must give effect to the objectives of the Heritage Area Act. They include protecting, restoring and enhancing the area, avoiding adverse effects on the environment (including amenity values), protecting landscapes and retaining rural character.
This is very different from the objectives of the proposed bills, which are much more focused on development outcomes. In fact, the protection of visual amenity and landscapes, other than “outstanding” ones, will no longer be within the scope of regulation at all. A rule seeking to protect the ranges’ visual amenity and rural character would be struck out in a heartbeat.
Although some protective goals do exist in the bills (such as no net loss of biodiversity), there is no hierarchy between these and others that are development-focused. And the minister is able to “resolve conflicts” between them with very few guardrails.
Secondly, the RMA’s long-standing presumption against subdivision (that it’s not allowed unless expressly authorised) is reversed. Anyone will be entitled to subdivide land unless specifically restricted in a national direction or a plan. In the ranges, that would lead to death by a thousand cuts.
Subdivision will be managed under the Planning Bill, which contains no meaningful environmental considerations. This is a big problem, as environmental concerns are a big part of why controls on subdivision exist in the ranges.
Thirdly, although councils can still restrict land use to protect biodiversity and outstanding natural landscapes, doing so will be a lot harder. For a start, they will require more explicit justification than under the RMA.
They will also be subject to a “regulatory relief” framework, which is essentially a compensation regime for private landowners, proposed by the Act Party, where rules have a “significant impact” on the “reasonable use” of private land. This means the council may be obliged to compensate landowners for the kinds of restrictions on development that are fundamental to the protection of the ranges.
Combined with a rates cap, there is a huge risk of a large-scale regulatory retreat from biodiversity and landscape protections in the ranges, because the council may well have to pay for them and will not be able to afford to do so.
Fourthly, it will be much harder for communities and environmental groups to challenge plans. To make a submission (and therefore appeal to the Environment Court), a person will have to be a “resident” of Auckland. NGOs, and those who have a connection with the ranges but are based elsewhere, will have significant hurdles to jump through before they can have a say. For consent applications having significant environmental effects, they will have no standing at all.
Even for residents, submissions and appeals are not allowed to challenge plan provisions that are simply copied and pasted from general zones provided by government. These standardised zones are yet to be created, so their adequacy is unknown. But if the council were to simply place a generic “rural” zoning over the ranges, the content of those rules could not be challenged. It is only bespoke rules – the kind that are really needed in the ranges but will be less likely under the new laws – where that can happen, albeit in a limited way.
Finally, Bishop has signalled that legislation will delete rural-urban boundaries, which are currently in Auckland’s Unitary Plan. That boundary has acted as a vital dividing line between Auckland’s western suburbs and the ecologically sensitive Waitākere Ranges.
We need to speak up for our taonga and get these threats excised from the proposed new laws. We also need to ensure they retain an explicit linkage between the Waitākere Ranges Heritage Area Act and statutory plans. Submissions to the Environment Select Committee close on February 13.
Catch up on the debates that dominated the week by signing up to our Opinion newsletter – a weekly round-up of our best commentary.