Resource Consent - Criticism

Criticism

One of the major complaints (mainly raised by corporations) regarding the resource consent process has been that submissions made in opposition against a project can be made by any entity, even if it is not affected. This has, in the opinion of the critics, caused the resource consent process to be used as an anti-competitive and anti-investment tool by which both individuals and other corporations can stop projects while appearing to act in the common interest. The true motivation of such submissions and associated appeals, it is alleged, is trade competition, a factor which is expressively not to be considered when testing the merits of a resource consent application.

Other criticisms include:

• Many minor activities which do not appear to change the use of any resources or have any environmental impact require a consent, such as building a deck within a certain distance of a boundary or certain renovations within existing houses.
• the long time taken for consents to be granted adds weeks or months to the planning and building of projects
• the cost of the consents - the absolute minimum cost of a consent at the Wellington District Council is five hours at 90 dollars per hour. Together with the cost of preparing reports, employing special inspectors and designers, and complying with the conditions of a consent, the costs of obtaining a resource consent can substantially increase the costs of both small and large projects to the point where it is no longer economical to proceed with the activity (for instance, constructing a deck or building a new driveway) even though it would add value to the property.

Some commentators consider that the requirement for resource consents is slowing or preventing the construction of large infrastructure projects, such as highways, roads, wind farms and other power generation plants, which are important to New Zealand's economic wellbeing, as well as adding to the cost of such projects.