Gore’s mayor says proposed changes to the Resource Management Act (RMA) are "essentially good" and the new streamlined system would not shake the council up too much.
RMA Reform Minister Chris Bishop announced the changes last week — the government would replace the RMA with two new laws separating land-use planning and management of natural resources.
Regional combined plans (RCPs) were also announced as part of the reforms.
They would consolidate more than 100 existing regional and district plans into just 17 regional plans.
The changes would help streamline consenting processes and reduce planning times for businesses and property owners, as well as increasing property rights.
They were forecast to save $13.3 billion over a 30-year time period by increasing the GDP by 0.56% per annum, Mr Bishop said.
Gore District Mayor Ben Bell told The Ensign he thought the changes were a good step.
But he had a few concerns over the changes to the planning system.
"I think the simplifying of the RMA is essentially a good step.
"Moving to an RCP, while probably a good thing, will require a fair amount of manpower and ratepayer money.
"There will obviously be unintended consequences around a preference to property rights, but overall I think simplifying the system is a good thing," he said.
Mr Bell spoke at length about economic growth in Gore during his re-election campaign, with a focus on bringing businesses into the district.
He said the RMA reforms would help bring a bit more certainty to industries regarding legislative requirements and consenting — and he said the town was ready for investment.
"For us, the biggest impact will be the district plan," Mr Bell said.
"We’ve already developed it with the changes in mind, so it will free up a lot of industrial and development lands.
"Coupled with the RMA changes, this will hopefully boost economic growth in our district," he said.
The changes also included "regulatory relief", where compensation from local councils could be sought if regulations impeded on property rights.
Mr Bell said there were arguments both for and against the change.
For example, if people bought a property and were looking to do it up but found themselves unable to do so because of its heritage status, there was an argument for compensation.
On the other hand, Mr Bell questioned whether it was fair for the district to pay for somebody’s decision to buy a building.
He said the legislation was up to central government at the end of the day.
"I think it ‘balances out’ a little bit better than it was.
"I think some people have probably been unfairly caught by that legislation [around heritage protection]."
Mr Bell was optimistic for the future. He said the reforms would not shake up the district too much.
"We embrace the changes.
"I don’t think it’ll have a large impact locally.
"It’s good in terms of streamlining," he said.
