In its submission to the environment select committee on the Bill, the council sought for a more substantive role for local authorities, particularly regarding housing and infrastructure projects. It said additional checks and balances were required to avoid "potentially dangerous, wide-ranging and significant unintended consequences" of any prohibited activity accepted into the process.
In a report to councillors, principal policy adviser Luke Place said the Bill sought to establish standalone fast-track legislation providing all necessary approvals to progress major infrastructure, housing and development projects.
It removed the need for public notifications and hearings, and gave full and final decision-making power to a small group of "joint ministers".
Alternatively, they could be referred subsequent to the law-making process, and after being considered against the Bill’s eligibility.
The joint ministers would have the final deciding powers on which projects were accepted under both pathways.
The council submission, signed by Mayor Glyn Lewers and chief executive Mike Theelen, said the decision-making process required modifications and outlined concerns the joint ministers could unilaterally accept or decline an application, making decisions which may differ from some or all of the expert panel’s recommendations.
It sought for ministers to be required to "fully justify and report on their decisions", and if they departed from expert panel recommendations, relevant local authorities needed the ability to provide further input ahead of the final decision, particularly for housing and infrastructure projects, or for any prohibited activity.
That was particularly relevant for the Queenstown Lakes district, where the majority of land was either classified an outstanding natural feature or outstanding natural landscape, or had a range of other development constraints, such as geographic barriers or natural hazard risks.
The submission said it also considered the purpose of the Bill was "too narrowly focused" and failed to mention any type of desired outcomes projects should seek to achieve, or effects which needed to be managed, beyond "significant regional or national benefits".
"The eligibility criteria for projects, including their capacity (or not) to generate significant regional or national benefits is a key gateway test that must reflect the significance of effects (positive and negative) that could be experienced."
