L7 - Integrated Resource Management (Guest)

IRM and RMA policy and law – Overview

• Integrated Resource Management (IRM) in New Zealand is the policy and legal framework that coordinates sustainability across land, air, and water, guided by the Resource Management Act (RMA).
• Focus areas from the transcript: what IRM is, two key legal elements, how IRM is implemented in the RMA, why IRM matters, and the problems and possible solutions.

What IRM is and the key ideas (from the course material)

• IRM operates at three levels: normative, strategic, and operational, and requires integration across media (land, air, water) using an ecosystems approach.
• It also requires horizontal integration across different pieces of legislation to avoid siloed outcomes.
• Two key legal elements underpinning IRM:
  • integration of Sustainable Management (SM) as the overarching purpose of the RMA through linking language; and
  • vertical and horizontal integration of planning instruments to ensure coherence across planning documents and authorities.

IRM – RMA policy and law – overview (concepts from Grinlinton and course materials)

• IRM emphasizes integrating sustainability into environment law and policy across levels and media.
• The approach creates a cohesive system where different instruments, plans, and regulations work together rather than in isolation.

Sustainable management – Linking language (how SM is achieved)

• Linking language creates a direct/explicit link between the SM purpose and the exercise of all RMA functions/powers.
• Core textual anchors:
  • $\text{Section } 5(1)\text{: the purpose of this Act is to promote SM of natural and physical resources.}$
  • $\text{Section } 6\text{: In achieving the purpose of this Act all persons exercising functions and powers under [this Act] .. in relation to managing the use, development and protection of natural and physical resources shall..}$
  • $\text{Section } 7\text{ and Section } 8\text{: identical words used.}$
• Result: the SM purpose sits at the center of the exercise of all functions and powers by all persons at all levels; it is not subordinate to some other purpose.

Resource Management Act responsibilities (who does what)

• Central Government responsible for:
  • National Environmental Standards (NES)
  • National Policy Statements (NPS)
  • Water policy priorities and standards
  • NZ Coastal Policy Statement
  • Conservation orders and related regulations
  • National Planning Standards
  • National importance considerations
• Regional Councils (RCs) responsible for:
  • Soil, water, air, pollution, and coast management; ensuring sufficient development capacity
  • Regional Plans and Natural hazards planning
• District Councils (DCs) responsible for:
  • Land use planning, subdivision, noise, and natural hazards
  • Ensuring sufficient development capacity at the district level
• Planning instruments (level of instruments) and their alignment:
  • Regional Policy Statements (RPS)
  • Regional Plans (RP)
  • District Plans (DP)
  • Mana Whakahono a Rohe (iwi consultation/critiques)
• Resource Consents and Permits cover: water, discharge, land, subdivision, and coastal resources

Local government responsibilities (summary)

• Coastal marine area management
• Water quality and quantity control
• Contaminant discharges control
• Soil conservation
• Subdivision planning
• Land use regulation

SM & purpose of key RMA planning instruments

• Planning instruments and their purposes:
  • National Policy Statements (NPS) – s45
  • Regional Policy Statements (RPS) – s59
  • Regional Plans (RP) – s63
  • District Plans (DP) – s72
• All of these instruments aim to achieve the purpose of the Act, i.e., SM.
• How they are prepared/changed:
  • RPS preparation must be in accordance with Part 2 (Principles) – s61
  • Similar considerations apply to RPs and DPs (sections to be found in the Act)
• Section 32 evaluation:
  • $\text{Section } 32: \text{An evaluation report must examine whether the objectives of the proposal are the most appropriate way to achieve the SM purpose.}$
• Decision-making on resource consents is constrained by:
  • $\text{Section } 104\text{: subject to Part 2 (SM) principles.}$

IRM and sustainable management as the purpose of the RMA – Falkner v Gisborne DC

• Falkner v Gisborne District Council (1995) 3 NZLR 622 (extract on Canvas): the Act creates a “comprehensive, interrelated system of rules, plans, policy statements and procedures, all guided by the touchstone of sustainable management.”
• This quote emphasizes a coordinated framework where all components align to SM as the overarching objective.
• The system is designed to be a coordinating framework that works together to achieve sustainable management.

Sustainable management – discussion and issues

• Four main points raised in the discussion: 1) RMA amendments and internal contradictions leading to poor outcomes:
  • Loss of general urban tree protection
  • Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and other Matters) Amendment Act 2021 introduced new planning rules for medium-density urban residential development
  • Loss of heritage, amenity, ecological values
  • Potentially poorer climate change outcomes
    2) Related Acts with similar but not identical purposes to the RMA, creating potential misalignment
• These issues highlight tensions between planning reforms, heritage/amenity values, climate outcomes, and broader statutory frameworks.

Integration of planning instruments – vertical and horizontal integration

• Vertical integration: alignment across policy statements and planning instruments from national to local level, to ensure consistency in achieving SM.
• Horizontal integration: alignment across different Acts and plans, including those outside the RMA (e.g., conservation, reserves acts, LGA/LTMA), to avoid conflicts and duplications.
• Key drivers for integration include:
  • Clarifying the influence of NPS/NES and enabling central government to be more directive (e.g., s55, 2009 changes)
  • Improving implementation of regional policy (RPS) by Territorial Authorities (TAs)
• The degree of consistency depends on language in the statute, for example:
  • “give effect to” – must implement
  • “recognise and provide for” – acknowledges but allows some discretion
  • “consistent with” – aligns, but with room for local variation
  • “not inconsistent with” – avoid conflicts
  • “take into account” / “have regard to” – consider but not necessarily implement
  • Example for vertical alignment: a central policy can direct local plans to align with national directions, with varying degrees of compulsory weight depending on wording.

Horizontal integration example – DP in the district planning context

• s74(2)(b)–(c): District Plans must have regard to management plans and strategies under other Acts (e.g., Conservation Act, Reserves Act, Local Government Act (LGA), LTMA, etc.)
• s74(2A): District Plans must take into account iwi authority planning documents
• Note: s74(3) addresses trade competition considerations
• Task: find similar sections for RPS/RPs for full horizontal mapping

Why integration matters – Strategic objectives to regulatory rules

• The integration process is important because it translates strategic objectives and policies (both within RMA and outside it) into regulatory goals (rules) that have the force of law and can compel or prevent activities.
• The concept of “integration of strategic objectives” is about connecting high-level policy intent with the rules that regulate behavior on the ground.
• A map or diagram often used shows the width of arrows representing legal weighting and influence among documents.

Example 1 – Vertical integration: RPS and DPs

• Historically, consistency between RPS and DPs was weak, causing tension between RCs and TAs (e.g., TA-created DPs inconsistent with RPS).
• Strengthened by §75(3)(c): a district plan must “give effect to” any regional policy statement (RPS) – a response to ARC v NSCC.
• §82 also deals with disputes around inconsistency

Example 2 – Vertical integration: NZCPS and RPs

• The statutory weight of the NZ Coastal Policy Statement (NZCPS) has been strengthened, enabling central government to direct content of regional/district plans (including rules).
• The King Salmon case is a key reference here: it emphasized the hierarchical structure where the NZCPS influences regional plans when giving effect to SM.
• The King Salmon quote (NZSC 2014) states:
  • $\text{"RMA creates a hierarchy of policy statements and plans which seek to give substance to the SM purpose with increasing particularity both as to substantive content and locality."}$
• This demonstrates that higher-level policy statements guide more specific local rules.

The King Salmon case (2014) – the King Salmon / NZSC ruling

• Case: Environmental Defence Society Inc v New Zealand King Salmon Co Ltd [2014] NZSC 38
• Core message: the RMA establishes a hierarchy of policy statements and plans that progressively specify content and locality to give substance to SM.
• The ruling supports a coherent, tiered architecture where national policy statements constrain and shape regional and district plans.

Integration of planning instruments – challenges and solutions

• There is a recognized hierarchy under the RMA, but the ideal is a coherent network of planning instruments achieved through cooperation/coordination and common goals across levels.
• Waikato University research highlights: RCs tend to focus on environmental protection while TAs focus on land use development, creating coordination problems (e.g., observed degradation in the Hauraki Gulf due to split focus).
• Source: Baillie – CANVAS – realities/solutions of unitary authorities

Possible solution – unitary authorities (and Auckland as example)

• One proposed solution is amalgamating RCs and TAs into Unitary Authorities to improve coherence between environmental protection and land use planning.
• Example: Auckland (2010) created a Unitary Council combining regional and district functions.
• Features:
  • Created a combined plan (Unitary Plan) that integrates RPS, RP, and DP requirements (Auckland Unitary Plan – AUP(OP)) – 2/2014 and 8/2016 milestones
  • AUP described as Auckland’s rulebook, providing detailed regulatory content and locality considerations

Other Auckland planning contexts

• Auckland Spatial Plan (2012) under the LG Act 2009
• Auckland Plan 2050 (2018): required by the Local Government Act 2009 to contribute to Auckland’s well-being through a long-term strategy (20–30 years)
• Growth management tools include: Rural/Urban Boundary (RUB), brownfield and greenfield development, and infrastructure alignment to support integrated land use and transport planning

Auckland Plan – Development Strategy

• Key mechanisms include:
  • Quality, compact urban form
  • Urban footprint and Rural-Urban Boundary (RUB)
  • Multi-nodal urban model (City Centre, Albany, Westgate, Manukau)
  • Emphasis on intensification, infrastructure alignment, and rural protection

IRM and Auckland Plans – the Big Question (consistency and give-effect rules)

• Core questions: what is the level of consistency required between the Auckland Plan and the Unitary Plan? Must the Unitary Plan give effect to the Auckland Plan, or is “have regard to” sufficient?
• Answers from the framework:
  • Under RMA, §61(2)(a)(i): when preparing an RPS, RCs must have regard to management plans/strategies under other Acts to the extent their content bears on regional RM issues.
  • See also §74: similar considerations for District Plans
  • Outcome: the Auckland Plan does not automatically require the Unitary Plan to give full effect; it may be restrained by statutory wording and regulatory discretion
• Implications:
  • The relationship between strategic policy directions and regulatory rules can be weak, potentially challenging the delivery of strategic goals through regulatory instruments

Auckland Plan and Unitary Plan – practical realities

• Weak implementation of Auckland Plan’s strategic direction at times, especially in translating strategic policy into regulatory rules
• Council may desire stronger rules but face pushback from development interests and central government
• The Unitary Plan was developed by an independent Hearings Panel, not the Council, underscoring the political and procedural complexities

IRM – Auckland Plans at a glance (30-year vs 10-year planning horizons)

• Long planning horizon (Auckland Plan) aligns with 20–30 year growth strategy, broader place-based planning and policy alignment
• Unitary Plan operates on typical shorter planning timeframe (around 10 years) and includes regulatory rules
• Supporting tools: Local Government Act (LGA) planning provisions, Long-Term Plan (LTP), and other planning documents
• The relationship among: Auckland Plan, Unitary Plan, and other statutory frameworks (LG Act, LGA, etc.) shapes how IRM is implemented in practice

IRM recap – main takeaways

• IRM of SM is advanced through linking language that ties the functions/powers to SM and through consistency across planning instruments (vertical and horizontal integration).
• The strength and effectiveness of IRM depend on how the links between strategic goals and regulatory rules are enacted (e.g., “give effect to” vs. “have regard to”).
• In practice, Auckland’s case shows a weakness in the dynamic between strategic goals (Auckland Plan) and regulatory delivery (Unitary Plan), which can leave policy goals vulnerable to pushback and slow implementation.
• The King Salmon case provides a jurisprudential anchor for understanding how national and regional policy statements should guide more specific local rules.

Discussion prompt – King Salmon and further reading

• King Salmon case is a key reference for understanding the hierarchy and interpretive approach within the RMA framework.
• For further nuances and implications, explore: King Salmon Supreme Court decision and commentary (e.g., Buddle Findlay Insights) on how the decision affects planning practice and the alignment of policy statements with local plans.

Key legal references (selected)

• Section 5(1) – purpose of the Act: $\text{Section } 5(1) : \text{the purpose of this Act is to promote SM of natural and physical resources.}$
• Section 6 – duties of those exercising functions and powers under the Act: $\text{Section } 6: \text{In achieving the purpose … shall …}$
• Sections 7 and 8 – identical wording to support the overarching SM purpose
• Section 32 – evaluation requirements: $\text{Section } 32 : \text{an evaluation… must examine whether the objectives are the most appropriate way to achieve the SM purpose.}$
• Section 104 – consent decisions: $\text{Section } 104 : \text{subject to Part 2}$
• Section 45 – National Policy Statements (NPS)
• Section 59 – Regional Policy Statements (RPS)
• Section 63 – Regional Plans (RP)
• Section 72 – District Plans (DP)
• Section 74 – consistency and regard for management plans/strategies under other Acts; iwi planning documents under 74(2A)
• Section 75(3)(c) – DP must give effect to RPS
• NZ Coastal Policy Statement (NZCPS)
• National Environmental Standards (NES)
• The King Salmon case: Environmental Defence Society Inc v New Zealand King Salmon Co Ltd [2014] NZSC 38

Notable cases and resources mentioned

• Falkner v Gisborne District Council [1995] 3 NZLR 622 – interpretation of SM as touchstone for the planning framework
• King Salmon Supreme Court decision (NZSC 38, 2014) – hierarchy and substance of policy statements and plans
• Auckland case study: Unitary Plan and Auckland Plan development, including the Auckland Council Act 2009, Auckland Spatial Plan 2012, and Auckland Plan 2050 (2018)
• Baillie CANVAS – realities/solutions of Unitary authorities
• Waikato University research on integration and cooperation across planning authorities

Quick recall prompts

• What are the two key elements that underpin SM in the RMA? (Linking language; vertical/horizontal integration of planning instruments)
• How does the linking language affect the exercise of RMA powers? (Creates a direct/explicit link to SM across all functions/powers)
• What is the significance of s75(3)(c) in vertical integration? (DP must give effect to RPS)
• What did the King Salmon case establish about policy hierarchy? (RMA creates a hierarchy of policy statements and plans giving substance to SM with increasing particularity and locality)
• What are some challenges seen in Auckland between strategic plans and regulatory rules? (Weak implementation, difficulty translating strategic policy into regulatory rules, potential pushback, independent hearings on the Unitary Plan)
• What is a unitary authority and how does it relate to IRM? (A single authority combining regional and district planning functions to improve coherence between environmental protection and land use planning)

Quick references (to explore further)

• King Salmon – NZ Supreme Court decision and commentary
• Auckland Plan 2050 – latest planning strategy; relationship with Unitary Plan
• Baillie – CANVAS case studies on unitary authorities and planning integration
• Waikato University research on planning instrument coordination and cooperation