Segundo paso: Seleccionar los controles de seguridad 76

Three of the interviewees acknowledged they had very little or no understanding of the LGA, including the purpose, decision-making responsibilities, and principles. For example, when asked about the purpose and principles of the LGA, one elected member said

I don’t feel I am particularly well versed – some of those things you said I thought oh yeah that’s right I think that is in the LGA but would never be able to tell you.

The other elected member had a good grasp of the LGA and clear understanding about the RMA and LGA and how they thought they should work together:

We have an obligation to apply both of those pieces of legislation to activities to allow some growth but while protecting the environment at the same time…they need to work together because they are our two bibles. Where we are looking at a hearing for a resource consent for a subdivision… the guiding principles of the RMA are what are important but then the function of arriving at having something to actually consider brings in the strands of the LGA that allow consultation and allows us to consider the four well-beings. At the end of the day the actual physical hearing process is driven within the parameters of the RMA.

Three interviewees found it hard to describe what sustainable management and

sustainable development is and the differences between them, avoiding the question or answering it in part. The fourth interviewee clearly articulated sustainable management as:

The long term approach to managing resources and how humans use those resources and sustainable development as about allowing the district to grow within the limits of those resources.

Interviewees were asked which of the two established concepts of sustainability (e.g. a balancing act between all four well-beings or an environmental bottom line) they thought best fits their ideas or whether they had an alternative view. Two interviewees clearly identified that that they thought there is an environmental bottom line that should not be compromised and that social, economic and cultural well-being should be managed above

balance between all four well-beings should be sought and another felt that in some instances the benefits of one well-being can outweigh the costs to another, including a detrimental effect on environmental well-being.

Two of the interviewees considered that rating and financial impacts on the adjacent community and wider district should not form part of the decision of whether or not to allow a development to go ahead. Instead these were considered an LTCCP issue. The other two interviewees deemed it imperative that the costs to the wider community and district of additional or upgrading of infrastructure be considered as this was an effect of the

development.

When assessing an application other relevant information to the consent can be considered under Section 104 of the RMA. As previously discussed there was relevant guidance for assessing the subdivision applications in council documents other than those developed under the RMA, such as the LTCCP, waste management strategies, civil defence and emergency strategies, and land transport strategies. These documents provide background information, emphasised or provided additional relevant policy guidance to coastal development decisions. However, from the interviews and the document analysis there was no reference to this guidance and only RMA planning documents were used to assess the applications. One interviewee felt that non-RMA documents should be used to help develop RMA policy direction in plans and strategies but they should not be used at the consent level to determine a decision. However, in both case studies interviewees mentioned that they would have considered any

growth/development management plans and strategies which are developed under the LGA when assessing future applications for subdivision. Gisborne District Council’s Urban Coastal Strategy, which provides policy guidance for sustainable coastal development, was not referred to in the assessment of the application. When questioned about why the strategy was not used, the interviewee explained that it was because the development was located outside the area planned for growth in the strategy. Like many developments in the coastal environment there is no certainty that applications for development will always be located in the areas which are planned for growth.

6.3 Conclusion

Interview data supported the analysis and findings in Chapters 4 and 5. The interviews added understanding about the approach taken to assessing the applications and the reasoning behind some on of the decisions. They also helped to identify a number of limitations that are restricting practitioners involved in the RMA consent process from seeking a more sustainable outcome.

The findings from the case study data analyses showed there was virtually no integration of the LGA in RMA decisions. The interviews were instrumental in understanding why this situation exists. In particular, they identified a general lack of understanding of the LGA by RMA practitioners which is reinforced by a silo approach to assessing consent applications. There is also a reluctance to use documents other than those developed under the RMA to assess consents and a reliance on District Plan rules to assess applications, even if the consent is discretionary.

Chapter 7