What are the new PC1 site-specific report permitted pathways?
The new site-specific report permitted pathways are an optional way for applicants to demonstrate compliance as a permitted activity with certain PC1 rules. The requirements for the site-specific reports are set out in Information Requirement Rules NH-REQ1 – NH-REQ4, which are summarised as follows:
- The reports required under NH-REQ1 – NH-REQ3 must demonstrate that the proposed activity will appropriately manage the hazard risks.
- The reports required under NH-REQ4 must confirm that the area of land where the development is proposed is not susceptible to the relevant natural hazard.
Information Requirement Rules NH-REQ1 – NH-REQ4 stipulate specific statements and conclusions that must be included in the reports where applicants choose to utilise these permitted pathways.
How are the permitted pathway rules being interpreted and applied?
Permitted activity rules must not:
- reserve discretion to the Council to determine compliance; or
- be ambiguous (capable of more than one interpretation) or contain subjective criteria.
Given the above:
- Any site-specific reports prepared in accordance with NH-REQ1 – NH-REQ4 must include the specified statements and conclusions in accordance with the relevant information requirement rule. Reports prepared in the absence of the required statements and conclusions will not be accepted as meeting the requirements for the permitted pathway. Similarly, if the reports caveat the conclusions or state alternative wording, they will not be accepted as meeting the requirements for the permitted pathway.
- Compliance with permitted activity rules cannot be determined on a discretionary basis. The intent of the rules is to remove Council's decision-making role if an applicant chooses to utilise the permitted pathways. Council cannot peer review or challenge the conclusions of the reports and must accept them provided that the specified statements and conclusions are included in accordance with the relevant information requirement rule. This shifts the responsibility from Council to the engineer or person preparing the report.
- If a suitably qualified and experienced person is not willing to include the specified statements and conclusions in a report, then the site-specific report permitted pathway is not an option available to an applicant. An alternative permitted pathway or resource consent pathway must instead be used.
If you need assistance in regards to the permitted pathway reports please contact the duty planners or arrange for a pre-application meeting prior to submitting:
How we can help
How were the permitted pathways introduced into the PC1 rules?
Initial drafting of PC1 began in early 2022, which included extensive pre-notification consultation involving stakeholders and the public. PC1 was publicly notified in May 2023 in accordance with Schedule 1 to the Resource Management Act 1991. The original notified version of PC1 did not include the site-specific report permitted pathways.
Original notified version of PC1(PDF, 719KB)
The formal notification led to 193 original submissions and 25 further submissions. Several submissions requested that some form of a site-specific report permitted pathway rule be included.
A hearing was held in February 2024 with three Independent Hearing Commissioners hearing from Council and submitters and making recommendations on the provisions and matters raised in submissions.
The site-specific report permitted pathway was a key topic that was discussed at the hearing. To better inform their recommendation, the Commissioners directed that expert conferencing occur between the expert planners (the Council planners and those planners who provided expert evidence on this topic on behalf of submitters).
Following the conferencing, the planners provided multiple joint witness statements to the Commissioners setting out their recommendations on the matter.
It is noted that the Council planners did not support the wording put forward by the planners who provided evidence on behalf of submitters specifically because it included “discretionary language that is not likely to be commonly understood by RMA practitioners and is not defined within the RMA or the Whangarei District Plan (e.g., “highly unlikely”, and “geotechnically suitable”).”
However, the Commissioners ultimately supported the rules recommended by both the Council planners and planners on behalf of submitters and recommended that multiple permitted pathways be included within the PC1 rules. The Commissioners’ recommendations were adopted by Council and the appeals version of the PC1 provisions now includes these multiple permitted pathways.
What are the next steps in the plan change process?
Six appeals were lodged against PC1. The Environment Court has directed the parties to participate in direct discussions and mediation to try and resolve the appeals before a hearing.
Some of the appeals relate to the site-specific report permitted pathway rules; therefore, these rules are subject to change through the appeal process.
Council staff are aware of the concerns that have been raised about the rules; however, the matters that may be addressed or amended through the appeal process are limited by the scope of the relief sought in the appeals lodged.