Council city development manager Anna Johnson spoke at a select committee hearing last Monday, after councillors last month approved a comprehensive submission on the government’s proposed Planning Bill and Natural Environment Bill.
The legislation is intended to replace the Resource Management Act (RMA).
Dr Johnson said the council supported much of the Bills’ intent, particularly that of greater national direction and an expanded role for spatial planning.
However, there were several ‘‘practical issues’’ with the proposed system.
In her view, the Planning Bill did not strongly reflect the long-term cost of running infrastructure.
‘‘If councils are required to enable development in locations that require premature or inefficient infrastructure investment, or require higher operating costs long-term, the cost of that infrastructure may not be financially sustainable for communities, particularly for slower-growing communities and modest-growing cities like Dunedin,’’ she said.
‘‘So in our case, where you have modest and uneven growth, it’s important to be able to direct development towards area where there is already infrastructure capacity or where that infrastructure capacity can be affordably extended or upgraded if you want to maintain affordability for ratepayers.’’
The legislation should explicitly allow planning decisions to consider infrastructure affordability and operating costs when deciding where development occurs, Dr Johnson said.
Among other matters, the council was also concerned about removal of amenity and most landscape values, and an apparent reduction in ability to recognise and protect heritage values, she said.
‘‘For Dunedin, they underpin our visitor economy and are really important to attracting people to come live and work and set up businesses.’’
Te Rūnaka o Ōtākou upoko Edward Ellison also spoke last Monday, as part of a wider Ngāi Tahu submission.
Mr Ellison said the proposed changes could not be treated as a ‘‘neutral legislative reset’’ - the Crown needed to look to the relationship between the Resource Management Act and the 1998 Ngāi Tahu settlement.
Resource consent was identified as a key area where historic harm had occurred and future decisions impacting taonga would be made, Mr Ellison, who was a settlement negotiator, said.
The proposed legislation treated Ngāi Tahu as a ‘‘bolt-on without agreement’’ and would undermine work towards an enduring partnership conducted in good faith.
‘‘As the planning system is rebuilt, the Treaty relationship and the Ngāi Tahu settlement must remain firmly embedded in its foundations,’’ Mr Ellison said.
‘‘These reforms may replace the RMA but they cannot replace the commitments Parliament has already made to Ngāi Tahu.’’
The Environment select committee’s report to the House is due on June 26.
