Fast-track Consenting: who benefits?

Environment & Planning
May 13 2020

Although a Bill is yet to be introduced, the 12 May 2020 Cabinet paper released on the proposed COVID-19 Recovery (Fast-track Consenting) Bill throws more light on what the fast-track consenting process will look like. Central and local government projects look to be the major beneficiary of the proposal, with other projects needing to be selected against eligibility criteria in order to qualify.

Projects that are eligible

Specific large-scale Government-led projects will be listed in the Bill, and the Bill will also enable certain central and local government projects to occur as of right, provided specified criteria, such as capital value thresholds or land tenure requirements are met. The Cabinet paper acknowledges that this brings a risk of a “less robust assessment of environmental effects” but rationalises this on the basis that central and local government agencies have a clear role in delivering public benefit, are subject to a higher level of scrutiny than private organisations, and have governing legislation that requires environmental considerations.

Beyond that, people with publicly or privately-led projects can apply to the Minister for the Environment to use a fast-track process. If the Minister considers that the project meets the purpose of the legislation, then an Order in Council will be made and it will be referred to an Expert Consenting Panel for a decision.

Criteria for non-listed publicly or privately-led projects

The criteria that the Minister will use to decide whether to fast-track a particular project are:

  • economic benefits for communities or industries affected by COVID-19
  • the social and cultural wellbeing of current and future generations
  • whether the project would likely progress significantly faster by using this process
  • whether the project will result in a significant public benefit. When considering whether it will do so, the Minister may have regard to any relevant matter, including whether the project will:
    • generate employment
    • increase housing supply and contribute to well-functioning urban environments 
    • provide infrastructure, to improve economic, employment, and environmental outcomes, and increase productivity
    • improve environmental outcomes for coastal or freshwater quality, air quality, or indigenous biodiversity
    • minimise waste
    • contribute to New Zealand’s efforts to mitigate climate change, including accelerating New Zealand’s transition to a low emissions economy
    • promote the protection of historic heritage
    • strengthen our environmental, economic and social resilience, including to natural hazards and the impacts of climate change.

There are certain conditions which the project must meet, such as that it would not authorise any activity classified as prohibited in any plan or proposed plan, nor involve land returned under a Treaty settlement unless there is agreement from the relevant iwi authority. However, the Cabinet paper notes that once an Order in Council is made, there should be a high level of certainty that a resource consent or designation will be granted.

Expert Consenting Panel process

The Panel which will make the decision in relation to the fast-tracked project will generally have no more than four members, but could exceed this in order to accommodate local circumstances. Unless otherwise provided for in a Treaty settlement, the Panel will be chaired by a current or retired Environment Court Judge (or other judge, or senior lawyer), and include a member of (or person nominated by) the relevant local authorities, and include a representative nominated by the relevant iwi authorities.

If a project is referred to the Panel, there will be no public notification but the Panel will be required to invite comment from certain parties including:

  • the relevant local authorities
  • any relevant iwi authority
  • any relevant customary marine title group, protected customary rights group or applicant group under the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011
  • the owners and occupiers of any land on which the project is to be undertaken, or of any adjacent land
  • certain Ministers of the Crown (to be identified in the legislation)
  • certain organisations or persons, to be identified in the legislation, including but not limited to environmental NGOs and infrastructure industry groups
  • any other person that the Minister for the Environment (and Minister of Conservation, if the project relates to the coastal marine area) considers appropriate

Timeframes and appeal rights

There is no obligation to hold a hearing, and the Panel must issue its decision on an application within 25 working days of the date it specifies it must receive comments on the application. The Panel can double this timeframe due to the scale of the project.

Appeals against a Panel decision on a resource consent will be limited to a point of law appeal to the High Court and a further right of appeal to the Court of Appeal, with no right of appeal to the Supreme Court.

Sunset clause

A two-year sunset clause is proposed for the Bill, although some Orders in Council approved prior to the repeal date may continue to have effect depending on the project.

Who benefits?

Listed Government-led projects are the clear beneficiary, as are the central and local government activities which will be able to occur as of right – essentially as deemed permitted activities.

Beyond that, a range of developers and infrastructure providers will be assessing their projects against the criteria for obtaining Ministerial approval to use the fast-track process. While projects that increase housing supply and contribute to well-functioning urban environments are a consideration, it remains to be seen whether this extends beyond large-scale re-zoning of land and associated infrastructure to the land developers themselves.

Environmental projects should also benefit – either from being specifically listed or through the eligibility criteria which include whether a project will improve environmental outcomes for coastal or freshwater quality, air quality, or indigenous biodiversity.

Conclusion

Once the Bill is introduced, it will provide more detaiI, at least on the large-scale Government-led projects to be listed, and the central and local government projects to occur as of right. It remains to be seen whether the eligibility and selection process for other publicly or privately-led projects will be any more fleshed out than the Cabinet paper.

It is likely that the Bill will be introduced shortly and passed under urgency.

You may also like ...
Another RMA amendment – freshwater and other matters
Another amendment Act, in a long line of RMA amendment Acts, came into force on 24 October 2024.  The Resource Management (Freshwater and Other Matters) Amendment Act 2024 (Act) makes the following key changes to the RMA: Freshwater The “hierarchy of obligations” in clauses 1.3(5) and 2.1 of the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2020 (NPSFM) are no longer considerations for resource consent decisions. This applies to resource consent applications lodged before commencement if the consent authority has not, before commencement, served notice of its decision on the application. Provides that councils are not to notify “freshwater planning instruments” (giving effect to the NPSFM) before the a new NPSFM has been published or the end of 2025. This is a year later than the RMA previously required.  Exemptions from this delay can be sought in certain circumstances. Section 107 of the RMA has been amended to clarify that councils can grant resource consent for discharges that would result in significant adverse effects, provided conditions reduce effects over time. This is a direct response to the Environmental Law Initiative’s successful judicial review of a discharge permit in mid Canterbury. Freshwater / Farming The Act removes the use of low slope maps under the Resource Management (Stock Exclusion) Regulations 2020 that restricted the grazing of beef, cattle and deer on low slope areas near water bodies. Low slope maps are to be replaced with freshwater farm plans and/or regional plans wherein Regional Councils can determine where stock grazing needs to be excluded on a case-by-case basis. Further, the Act repeals the permitted and restricted discretionary activity regulations and associated conditions for intensive winter grazing in the National Environmental Standards for Freshwater (NES-F). The Act replaces these with standalone regulations on riparian setback and critical source areas. Significant Natural Areas Local authorities have an obligation in the National Policy Statement for Indigenous Biodiversity (NPS-IB) to identify and include new significant natural areas (SNA) by 4 August 2028. These identification and incorporation requirements are suspended for three years by the Act which amends the timing provisions for when councils must publicly notify a proposed plan or plan change that gives effect to the NPS-IB.  This change seeks to provide sufficient time for Government to undertake a thorough review of how SNAs operate. Coal Mining The NPS-FM, NPS-IB and the NES-F all provide a consent pathway for mining activities in or near wetlands and SNAs, except for new coal mining activities.  The Act aligns the consenting pathway for new coal mining activities with the pathway for other mineral extractive activities across the NPS-IB, NPS-FM and the NES-F. National Direction The Act enables the Minister for the Environment to amend national direction (excluding the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement) without using the standard process where the amendment is for a range of purposes including to give effect to international obligations and to change timeframes.
Read more
Fast-track Approvals Bill – Select Committee report back
On Friday 18 October 2024, the Environment Committee reported back on the Fast-track Approvals Bill which was introduced on 7 March 2024. We take a look at what’s changed, what stays the same, and the road ahead. What’s changed? The Environment Committee has recommended the following key changes. The purpose of the Bill has been re-framed as “to facilitate the delivery of infrastructure and development projects with significant regional or national benefits”. Timeframes are amended slightly to provide the Expert Panel with 10 working days (rather than five) from their appointment to issue an invitation for written comments, and to provide those invited to comment with 20 working days (rather than 10) to provide those comments. Expert Panels no longer include an iwi appointee. However Expert Panels must include at least one member who is suitably qualified in te ao Māori and Māori development. The Expert Panel (not Ministers) will make final decisions on substantive applications. When considering applications, the Expert Panel must give the “greatest weight” to the purpose of the Bill. The Expert Panel may decline an approval if it forms the view that the activity or activities for which the approval is sought would have one or more adverse impacts, and those adverse impacts are sufficiently significant to outweigh the purpose of the Bill even after any conditions that the panel may set in relation to those impacts are taken into account. The lapse provisions have been amended to allow some discretion. Lapse periods must be at least two years, and if not specified, a default lapse period of five years will apply. What’s stayed the same? The Bill is still an ‘omnibus’ bill which covers a wide range of processes, not just resource consents. A person who has applied for an approval under another Act must withdraw that application before lodging a substantive application that seeks a corresponding approval under the Bill for the same, or substantially the same, activity. The Expert Panel still has a window of 25 working days from the closing date for comments to issue its decision, which is significant given the scale and complexity of many of the projects listed (although suspensions are provided for and there is the ability to extent that timeframe). Appeal rights are available to the High Court on a point of law only. Rights of judicial review are not affected by the Bill. The road ahead The Bill still refers to Schedule 2A and 2B (with provisions for Part A listed projects and Part B listed projects), despite the Minister’s announcement on 6 October 2024 that “Because of the unprecedented level of interest in this process, it became clear that so many projects were suitable for 2A that having a separate list for Schedule 2B became unnecessary, so it will be deleted from the Bill.” Presumably this will be amended as the Bill progresses through Parliament. For listed projects, the immediate issue will be resourcing the processing of those. With 149 projects selected for listing in the Bill, it remains to be seen how many will convert into lodged applications (and how quickly). There is also a mandatory requirement to consult specified persons before lodging the substantive application with the EPA. Once applications are lodged, Experts Panels will need to be formed to process applications. Overall, the fast-track process is likely to be resource intensive for all participants. Seeking referral for fast tracking is still possible (as was the case with the COVID-19 (Fast-track) Consenting Act 2019). However, the question will be the extent to which there is capacity within the system for the processing of referral applications, and referred projects, in light of the volume of listed projects. The Bill is expected to become law before the end of the year. For any questions, please contact one of the below who all have experience with fast-track applications.
Read more
Phase three of the Resource Management Reforms
Last week, the Government has announced that two new laws are to be developed to replace the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA), with the enjoyment of property rights as their guiding principle. Replacement of the RMA is part of the final phase (phase three) of the Government’s reform of our resource management system. The Government’s intention with a property rights focused system is to allow people to do more on their own property more easily, so long as it does not harm others.  Where harm to others results from an activity, the intention is that the new system should step in to protect a property owner’s rights from being compromised by unreasonable activities occurring around them. Cabinet has agreed on ten core design features of the new resource management system.  These features are still at a high level and more detail will be required before the effectiveness of these methods can be assessed in achieving the Government’s aspirations.  The ten features are as follows: Narrow the scope of the resource management system to focus on managing actual effects on the environment. Establish two acts with clear and distinct purposes – one to manage environmental effects arising from activities and the other to enable urban development and infrastructure. Strengthen and clarify the role of environmental limits and how those are to be developed. Provide for greater use of national standards to reduce the need for resource consents and simplify council plans. Shift the focus away from consenting before activities can get underway, and towards compliance, monitoring and enforcement of activities’ compliance with national standards. Use spatial planning and a simplified design process to lower the cost of infrastructure. Realise efficiencies by requiring one regulation plan per region, jointly prepared by regional and district councils. Provide for a rapid low cost resolution of disputes between neighbours and between property owners and councils, with the potential for a new Planning Tribunal (or equivalent). Uphold Treaty of Waitangi settlements and the Crown’s obligations. Provide faster and cheaper processes with less reliance on litigation, contained within shorter and simpler legislation that is more accessible. An expert advisory group has been appointed to assist with the development of the new system, whose expertise includes resource management law, planning and te ao Māori.  The Government expects key aspects of the new system to go before Cabinet for agreement before the end of the year with the intention for legislation to be passed before the next election.
Read more

Start typing and press enter to search

Scroll to Top