The planning process cycle under the RMA

The key steps in the public policy cycle are also logical steps in plan development:

1. identifying the issue
2. setting objectives in relation to the issue
3. choosing and evaluating the policy and methods to achieve the objective
4. implementing the policy and objectives through the chosen methods
5. monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of the policies, methods, and the environment.

Historically sections 62, 67, and 75 of the RMA mirrored and codified the public policy cycle. All elements of the policy cycle, other than the record of the alternative methods considered in drafting provisions and the evaluation of the provisions, were required to be contained in policy statements and plans.

The Resource Management Amendment Act 2005 removed the need for the whole cycle to be contained in planning documents (except regional policy statements), but the process nevertheless remains a logical model to use in plan development and monitoring, and many of the steps are still implicit within the duties and requirements of other sections of the RMA (such as s.32 and s.35).

Hypothetically, a plan that is now prepared need only contain objectives, policies and rules. If this was to be done, the other provisions would need to be, or could be, contained in external documents. The diagram below shows such an arrangement.

1. Issues: As an alternative to containing issues in the plan, these could be contained in s.32 reports (forming part of the justification for provisions of the plan). It is difficult to evaluate the extent objectives are appropriate to achieve the purpose of the Act without having reference to issues. Therefore issues are usually explicitly covered in s.32 reports. Alternatively, issues could form part of the explanatory material in a guide to a plan. Such a guide may not have a statutory function, but would enable plan users to understand why certain provisions existed, and what effects were sought to be avoided, remedied or mitigated. It could also be referred to in making decisions on resource consents as an ‘other matter’ under s.104(1)(d).

2. Objectives in relation to issues: These are still mandatory in RMA plans, but each objective is also required to be evaluated (in terms of appropriateness) under s.32(3)(a).

3. Choosing and evaluating policies and methods to achieve the objectives forms a critical part of the s.32 evaluation process to the extent that the policies and methods, and the justification for their existence, and the consideration of them against other potential policies and methods will be covered. Having chosen the policies and methods to be used, these may then be drafted for inclusion in the plan. It is mandatory for the plan to contain the policies and rules (with rules being a method), but methods other than rules could be transferred to other documentation either as information (for example, in a guide to the plan) or as capital or operational programmes (in which case they may appear in Long Term Council Community Plans, annual plans, or asset management plans for example).

4. The way in which plan provisions are implemented has never been recorded in the plan itself. However s.35 of the RMA requires councils to keep records of decisions made with respect to notification and service of notice decisions made on consents, and complaints about breaches of the RMA and RMA plans (amongst other things). This information forms an important resource for reviewing plan provisions and identifying new issues; a summary of it could appear in background reports to a plan review.

5. Monitoring the effectiveness and efficiency of plans is also a mandatory requirement under s.35. The results of this monitoring are required to be made available to the public at intervals of not more than five years. Prior to 2005, RMA plans contained information that was important to this duty (environmental results expected for example). However this information was often duplicated in s.35(2)(b) reports. The post 2005 situation does not remove the need for monitoring of plans and their outcomes, but does enable local authorities to place all this information in documents outside the plan (such as in s.35(2)(b) reports) if they desire.