At the council’s planning and strategy meeting on Friday — where the only item on the agenda was the proposed district plan stage two review — lawyers Warwick Goldsmith and Maree Baker-Galloway raised several concerns with the committee on behalf of the planning fraternity, including John Edmonds & Associates, Boffa Miskell, Jeff Brown, Millbrook Country Club and Graeme Todd.
Mr Goldsmith said there were ‘‘huge concerns’’ the decisions on the first stage of the proposed district plan might not be released until 2019 or 2020.
‘‘In 2015, we were told stage one would be completed through to the issue of decisions and then stage two would start.
‘‘We have been telling our clients that for two years.’’
Under the Resource Management Act the council was required to issue decisions ‘‘no later than two years’’ after notification, which meant the council had until August this year, he said.
While a waiver was possible, the council first had to consider the interests of the people adversely affected by delays — the community at large — and go through a formal process under the RMA.
‘‘To signal now 2019-20 [before decisions are issued] without even going through the process required under the Act to even allow you to do that is of ... great concern.’’
He reminded the committee the previous council had sought for the Environment Court to give immediate effect to part of the plan which would help fast-track development in the district ‘‘so people could start building houses’’.
‘‘The Environment Court said ‘no, you must go through the process’.
‘‘All the provisions ... are all dependent on stage one decisions being issued.’’
As soon as they were issued, the plan would take effect, regardless of any appeals.
Mr Goldsmith asked the committee, on behalf of ‘‘a lot of people’’ to take control of the process.
‘‘Go back and look at what the community was told when it started; stand by that.
‘‘Please take control. Make the Wakatipu Basin Study a stage one priority ahead of stage two, get us through stage one.
‘‘We have to keep moving.’’
Ms Baker-Galloway took issue with the reasoning behind delaying the release of decisions, none of which, she believed, were correct.
A concern issuing decisions progressively would be ‘‘procedurally unfair’’ to participants was actually the reverse, she said.
The first stage provided the overarching framework for the remainder of the proposed district plan. Without decisions on the first stage, the community would be ‘‘submitting in a vacuum’’.
‘‘It’s quite unfair for participants to take part in the process because of that uncertainty [and it is an] unfair use of people’s time and resources.’’
A suggestion releasing decisions would entail a ‘‘high degree’’ of risk about getting the plan ‘‘wrong’’ was unfounded because there were mechanisms available to make ‘‘consequential fixes’’ in following stages.
Her final issue was a statement the plan would be unable to be used during an ‘‘extended and confusing appeal period’’.
‘‘In my submission that’s also incorrect. As soon as stage one decisions are issued the rules have legal effect and people can start relying on them ... even if they’re appealed.
‘‘The other option is no certainty and mass confusion until 2019.’’
That would likely force developers to lodge a ‘‘plethora’’ of private plan changes or resource consent applications ‘‘that simply don’t fit’’.
Further, releasing decisions on the proposed plan en masse would more than likely result in an ‘‘avalanche’’ of appeals to the Environment Court at the same time, creating a backlog and lengthy delays.
The council’s planning and policy manager, Ian Bayliss, said the report before the committee was to confirm the proposed timeline for notification and hearings for stages two through five between July this year and next December.
There was no recommendation about when decisions would be released, but he said it would be ‘‘appropriate’’ for the council to obtain detailed legal advice about the implications and options available.
Committee chairman Tony Hill agreed and also signalled a desire to hold a ‘‘forum’’ with the planning community to better understand the issues.
The committee voted to pass the recommendation and also sought for legal advice to be obtained and reported back to the next meeting.
