I agreed with many submissions which prepared detailed analysis of policy and ethical issues concerning the Fast-track Approvals Bill. My practice’s submission, however, focused on providing on-the-ground, practice-based feedback from the extensive project experience we have gained over the past twenty five years.

Our design practice specialises in integrating large projects into local environments. We work on the kinds of projects which have been earmarked for fast-tracking under the Bill: nationally significant infrastructure projects and key urban renewal projects, often sited within complex and sensitive environments.

Why I oppose the Bill

I expect the governance regime and procedures outlined in the Bill for fast-tracked projects will mean that their planning and design will now largely avoid the checks and balances that typically result from public processes and public participation.  

This places a huge onus on selected projects to be sound in conception and responsible in their fit. Yet in our experience, New Zealand does not have the planning and design expertise within public and corporate organisations to deliver the grand ambitions of this Bill.

Most of the large-scale infrastructure and urban development plans proposed in recent years, certainly in Auckland and Wellington, have struggled to gain traction or approval, unless or until, significant remedial action was taken by the public.

In our opinion, any hurdles faced by these projects were mostly created by the poor judgement and low skill level of the organisations responsible for their conception and approval.

The strong calls from business and infrastructure representatives to overhaul the RMA and create an exclusive fast-track consenting process have distracted attention away from these significant weaknesses. They focus too much on exclusions and trade-offs as the way forward instead of accepting the industry’s fundamental role in contributing to long, slow and costly consenting processes.

From our perspective, organisations too often adopt outdated techniques in inappropriate places, with unsatisfactory decisions promoted as the need for reform.  

In particular, specialist technical professions are employed who do not know how to integrate projects into the receiving environment. Conceptual designs are mostly formulated by engineers whose worldview and skillset are thirty to forty years out of date.

Secondary consultants, such as landscape architects and urban designers, seem to have little power to shift outcomes (with architects largely absent) and are employed instead to wallpaper projects with detailed design features.

The prejudicial process intended by the Bill is therefore deeply concerning and problematic, because it will very likely protect inferior applications from being subject to the level of scrutiny and testing which always comes with public notification.

The Fast-track Approvals Bill will effectively lower standards to the level of ability of those who are unable to meet current requirements. This will create a vicious circle of ever declining standards in professional services and environmental outcomes.

The public’s essential role in forming our urban environments

We provided nine case studies in our submission on the Bill where the opening up of important infrastructure projects to public scrutiny and independent expert assessment led to significant improvements, and often, radical transformation of their design.

Of special relevance, eight of the nine projects were roads of national significance (or their equivalent back in the day).

Over the past 20 years, organisations have spent – and consultants’ earnt – billions of dollars developing transport infrastructure plans, only to end up building the public’s better ideas.

This includes the SH1 Ōrewa to Pūhoi Northern Gateway Motorway, the SH1 Victoria Park Tunnel andSH20 Mt Roskill Motorways in Auckland; and SH1 Buckle Street Underpass in Wellington, to name a few.

In almost every case, the methodology and key features approved or adopted for these projects were proposed by the public, not the organisation responsible for planning them.

This outcome does not fit the narrative of those promoting the Bill. The so-called ‘obstruction economy’ is, in reality, one which has monetised systemic failure.   

Productive citymaking

Instead, the ambitions of this Bill require, at the minimum, major upskilling and greater accountability of organisations and professionals.  

Our submission outlined the kind of methodology we have found works successfully with the real-world complexities of New Zealand’s planning system.

The most profitable areas for investigation are, not surprisingly, the contextual issues which organisations and technocratic approaches find the most challenging. We focus on devising integrated and holistic solutions which embrace the environment and local communities within the early conceptual stage of the design process.  

In this way, we have been able to deliver the contextual outcomes which legislation has expected - land use integration, environmental sensitivity and community support – while achieving comparable efficiencies of performance, usually at the same or lower cost.

Opportunity costs

The questions we asked the Select Committee looking at the Bill to consider, therefore, were what will be the long term implications and opportunity cost from removing the public and independent expert thinking from important planning processes, as proposed by this Bill?

The weight of evidence suggests that the public is more judicious in its assessment of adverse effects than many organisations and their consultants, and is able to create realistic alternatives with measurable national benefits.

The recognition of this is best encapsulated by a resource consent decision declining a nationally important transport infrastructure proposal at Onehunga in 2007: “The Auckland City Commissioners witnessed the significant positive involvement of submitters from the local community, who together with Māori, have put forward a well-considered package of alternative options. The community response overall reflects a more balanced approach.”

richardreid.co.nz