Sign In / Register
The Hibiscus and Bays Local Board made clear last month that it opposes the coalition government’s proposed Fast-track Approvals Bill in its current form.
In a document providing input to Auckland Council’s submission on the bill, the board said it recognised that the current consenting process could be lengthy and add time and costs to the delivery of projects, but voiced “serious concerns” about elements of the planned legislation.
As currently drafted, the bill would give three ministers with development-related responsibilities (Infrastructure Minister Chris Bishop, Regional Development Minister Shane Jones and Transport Minister Simeon Brown) the power to approve infrastructure projects. Although an expert panel would review and make recommendations on proposed projects, the final decision would be made by the ministers.
The government says the objective is to enable the efficient provision of large-scale projects “with significant regional or national benefits”, by reducing the costs and time needed for consenting.
Environmental advocacy groups are spearheading opposition to the bill, which was introduced in the House under urgency on March 7. Public submissions to an Environment select committee on the bill closed on April 19.
To submit its feedback during the submission period, the local board’s position was formulated under delegated authority by then chair and deputy chair, Gary Brown and Julia Parfitt on April 12. The board then received it at a meeting on April 23.
The feedback said the legislation would give unprecedented decision-making power to just a few ministers, who despite not having the requisite technical expertise could reject recommendations by expert panels. This would leave the ministers open to legal and political risk, including “potential allegations of predetermination or bias”.
The board said it was also worried about lack of opportunities for public participation in the process.
It said more clarification was needed on projects that would be eligible for fast-tracking, and raised concern about a clause in the bill stating that a project would not be ruled ineligible just because it included an activity that would be prohibited under the Resource Management Act.
The board said further that the legislation could result in unplanned housing developments in future urban and rural areas outside the urban-rural boundary, and in “ad-hoc housing developments that ultimately lead to urban sprawl, poor outcomes and further unnecessary infrastructural costs to ratepayers”.
“There is already insufficient council and central government funding for the infrastructure required for existing live-zoned greenfield areas in Auckland, and out-of-sequence development will only worsen this funding gap.”
