Post-crisis infrastructure planning: new challenges for participatory planning

Christine CheyneMassey University, New Zealand

C.M.Cheyne@massey.ac.nz

Outline

1) The GFC as justification for planning reform in NZ

2) Streamlining and simplifying planning processes – a shift from local to national consenting

3) Two case studies of national consenting

4) Conclusions – depoliticisation of environmental planning?

The GFC and NZ

• Much less severe than in USA and UK/Europe – some finance companies failed but no major bank bailouts

• Economy buffered by recent surpluses and nature of external trade (weighted towards food esp. dairy)

• June 2014 unemployment rate 5.6% cf. average of 3.9% for 4 years prior to GFC

• A ‘safe haven’ economy?• A big scare … concerns about financial stability and

resilience and need not to rely on monetary policy

Source: McDermott, Phil, 2010, Cities Matter blog

1. NZ banks had limited exposure to global assets which were hit hard by the crisis so there was comparatively less pressure them to cut lending to local households and businesses

2. A limited fall in household wealth as house prices held up3. Strong demand from China and other Asian economies for NZ

exports4. Higher nominal interest rates and lower public debt allowed use

of monetary and fiscal stimulus to offset much of the shock; and5. A flexible exchange rate, and product and labour markets

“helped to cushion the adjustment”. (Mahklouf, 2013)

New Zealand has been bruised by the GFC but overall we’re in better shape than a lot of other developed nations, particularly in Europe. Our GDP per capita, measured on an own-currency basis, fell by 1.5 percent between 2007 and 2012 but there were bigger falls in Norway (3.3 percent), in the UK (5.6 percent), in Denmark (6.7 percent) and in Ireland (10.3 percent). In Greece the fall was 21.4 percent. And since the GFC, New Zealand’s economic performance has been comparatively better too: International Monetary Fund forecasts have New Zealand attaining a pre-crisis level of GDP per capita this year – six years after the start of the GFC. For the United States it’s expected to be seven years, in France and Ireland nine years, and the United Kingdom more than a decade.

Gabriel Makhlouf Secretary to the Treasury, 24 July 2013

New policy settings post GFC

• November 2008 change of govt from centre left to centre right (National Party)

• Major objective : promote economic growth and productivity through regulatory reform and investment in infrastructure especially RONS (or RONPS), water storage

We are in the middle of a global financial crisis and we face the most difficult economic conditions for a generation.A month before the election Treasury forecast a decade of deficits. Since then, the global crisis has deepened, …

But this is not a time to over-react. This is a time for the Government to show some strength, look beyond the short-term, and reach through this recession.

We are not going to slash and burn. ….

The best hope for the finances of the Government… and the best hope for the future of our country is economic growth.Our plan to get the economy growing again includes, among other steps, an ongoing programme of personal tax cuts, a step-up in infrastructure investment, a reduction in government bureaucracy in favour of frontline services, an across-the-board commitment to lifting productivity growth, and a

renewed effort to raise education standards. John Key, PM, 15/12/2008

National will remove the roadblocks that restrict New Zealanders’ ability to grow their businesses and grow our economy.Within the first 100 days of our first term, National will introduce to Parliament a bill to reform the Resource Management Act.This legislation will simplify and streamline the existing Act. …We are determined to remove the handbrake the RMA places on growth. We are determined to let good ideas flourish in this country. We are going to get New Zealand moving again.

John Key, Leader of the National Party, Speech August 2008

Resource Management Act 1991 amendments 2009

• made it easier for applicants to choose a national consenting process instead of the conventional local authority-managed process

• established the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) to manage the national consenting process

• introduced a nine-month time-limit for boards of inquiry to release a decision – with discretion for Minister to grant a month’s extension

In deciding whether a matter is, or is part of, a proposal of national significance, the Minister may have regard to—(a) any relevant factor, including whether the matter—(i) has aroused widespread public concern or interest regarding its actual or likely effect on

the environment (including the global environment); or(ii) involves or is likely to involve significant use of natural and physical resources; or(iii) affects or is likely to affect a structure, feature, place, or area of national significance; or(iv) affects or is likely to affect or is relevant to New Zealand's international obligations to the

global environment; or(v) results or is likely to result in or contribute to significant or irreversible changes to the

environment (including the global environment); or(vi) involves or is likely to involve technology, processes, or methods that are new to New

Zealand and that may affect its environment; or(vii) is or is likely to be significant in terms of section 8; or(viii)will assist the Crown in fulfilling its public health, welfare, security, or safety obligations or

functions; or(ix) affects or is likely to affect more than 1 region or district; or(x) relates to a network utility operation that extends or is proposed to extend to more than 1

district or region; and(b) any advice provided by the EPA.

Resource Management Act 1991 Section 142(3)

Case study – water storage

• Tukituki Catchment proposal – heard by Board of Inquiry at request of applicants (Hawkes Bay regional Council and Hawkes Bay Regional Investment Company)

• involved plan change for managing water quality in Tukituki River catchment and resource consents for construction of dam and irrigation pipes – NZ’s largest irrigation scheme (approx 25,000 ha) and largest dam consented under the RMA 1991

Tukituki Catchment Proposal timelime5 June 2013 Ministers direct the application to a BoI

6 July 2013 Public notification (report due 28 April 2014)

2 Aug 2013 Submissions closed (384 submissions received + 22 further submissions (amounting to approx 5,500 pages of material, and “raising numerous and complex technical issues”)

18 Nov 2013-21 Jan 2014

29 days of hearings (evidence from 131 witnesses (presenting 181 briefs of evidence) + 74 representations / submissions from submitters) resulting in a transcript of the hearing of over 3,700 pages;

31 Jan 2014 Board requests a one month extension (report now due 28 May 2014)

15 April 2014 Board releases draft report

7 May 2014 HBRC requests further extension of 1 month to give longer for comments to be made on draft report

14 May 2014 Ministers grant extension of 1 month (report now due 28 June 2014)

18 June 2014 BoI delivers Final Report and Decisions to Minister

26 June 2014 Public release of Final Report and Decisions

Two appeals have been lodged - to be heard in High Court in mid November 2014

the hearing itself involved highly contested technical expert evidence on a number of key matters requiring careful and methodical consideration and determination by the Board which inevitably takes time;

the matters raise key issues for New Zealand (and hence the range and conflict of evidence received by the Board) as to the sustainable management of freshwater and, in particular, freshwater quality and quantity limits and the intensification of land use;

Case study - transport

• 7 current Roads of National Significance (RONS) project applications considered by BoI

• RONS are ‘lead infrastructure’ projects – i.e. enabling economic growth rather than simply responding to it

Waterview Expressway RONS

• a large and complex project – joining two existing state highways with approximately 13.2 km of existing and new state highway in Auckland City

• Application was for 6 NORs (3 alterations and 3 new designations) and 55 consents (landuse, water, air, discharge and coastal)

• 252 written submissions – nearly ¾ of which were “non-expert” of whom about half made oral representations at hearing

20 Aug 2010

New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) lodges application with EPA

27 Aug 2010 EPA recommends referral to Board of Inquiry

18 Sept 2010 Public notification Board of Inquiry

15 November 2010 NZTA’s Evidence in Chief exchanged

17 December 2010 Submitters’ evidence exchanged

Mid-Jan – 7 Feb 2011, March Caucusing

6 April 2011 Extension (9 working days) to produce final report granted

6 May 2011Board of Inquiry direct experts to redraft certain consent conditions

13 May 2011 Experts deliver redrafted consent conditions

24 May 2011 Board of Inquiry releases draft decision and report

29 June 2011 Board of Inquiry releases Final Report and Decision

Waterview Connection Timeline

Assessment• Judicial process of Board of Inquiry much more formal and

intimidating for ‘lay’ participants than traditional local authority consenting – deters participation

• ‘Lay’ submitters marginalised in process – greater time allocated to, and weighting given to evidence of, experts

• Board members external to local community compared with councillors or commissioners

• Complexity exacerbated marginalisation• Tight timeframes imposed at early stages very inconvenient to many

submitters who are not paid by organisations, but applicant and board able to request extensions

• Timeframes needed extending but even then not adequate

Reduced timeframes will impact on the ability of the general public to get involved in the decision-making process. In fact, the general public may become increasingly removed from the process thereby limiting the amount of information available to the Boards of Inquiry when making their recommendations. Such outcomes could therefore be said to limit the transparency of the EPA process… (Abes et al., 2011, p. 69; emphasis added.).

Conclusion

• EPA lacks sufficient independence and is fundamentally focused on fast-tracking development

• Quality/effectiveness of public participation and decision-making compromised by concerns about speed/efficiency of decision-making

• Recentralisation – a return to the National Development Act 1979? (no localist agenda here!)

• Marginalisation of public participation• Use of Boards of inquiry and their domination by lawyers

and experts is a form of depoliticisation with implications for democratic process

Questions/Comments