RMA reforms just tinkering

Auckland property developer David Whitburn

The Government introduced much anticipated legislation to overhaul the RMA into Parliament late last week.

To date, responses to the legislation have been mixed, with some division along ideological lines.

However, even among those who believe the legislation is needed to speed up housing development, there are differing views on it.

Prominent Auckland developer David Whitburn believes the Resource Legislation Amendment Bill is a strong step in the right direction to reduce red tape, but that much more needs to be changed.

He said the Government should be saluted for trying to cut through the RMA’s many pedantic rules and conservative interpretations by Councils and territorial authorities.

“But legislation is only one thing. Culture change is another.”

Staff in certain Councils are nicknamed "DPOs" - Development Prevention Officers – by many, Whitburn said.

“Many prefer to notify items and, under timetable pressures, actively attempt to slow down the consent issuance process.

“Various departments of Councils draw out the process through abuse of the section 92 request for further information process.”

As a result, culture change will need to be actively encouraged. 

There will need to be strong directions for, and monitoring of, Councils who are risk averse, he said.

“We also need a culture of praising and encouraging development to keep house price growth to sustainable levels, so that we don't have over 9 times household income to median house price multiples.”

Further, Whitburn said that, while the reforms will help to reduce delays and costs, they won’t make a big difference to costs for developers.

“They are tinkering rather than sweeping changes. So much more needs to be done than just this!”

In his view, removing or heavily reducing large imposts like the Watercare Infrastructure Growth Charge in Auckland and Development Contributions would have a bigger impact on developers – and would help to create more affordable housing.

He said Development Contributions should be funded through rates, as they have been in the past, while the Watercare Infrastructure Growth Charge should be covered by issuing infrastructure bonds.

Reducing planning controls like density limits and building heights and making it easier for overseas construction products and companies to come onto the market would also help, he said.