Costs Benefits Option 2: Councils Councils definitions to the Amending plans to take into account the definitions will take significant time Could remove some of the challenges around the definitions that are often debated and most controversial and resource for councils. appealed (although often provisions and definition are appealed together). ones that are regularly Councils and plan users Plan users debated and appealed loss of any case law on specific definitions once the terms are re-defined a clear understanding of controversial terms that will not be able to be challenged locally (this would likely or amended increase in appeals on new definitions and how they are used in produce the smallest any interpretation by the Environment Court or higher courts through declarations and number of definitions opportunity cost of not including a wider range of definitions that could appeals would apply across the country and provide greater certainty over time; although of all of the options). assist with the implementation of regional plans. the benefits of this would be less with this option than the other options considered. Ministry for the Environment, and central government resourcing costs are incurred in the development and testing of definitions determining which definitions are controversial would involve considerable resourcing and is likely to be subjective. General public Minimal costs to general public as they are likely to interact with only one plan. Effectiveness and Effectiveness Efficiency efficiency The option is not the most efficient. Some terms that are not controversial This option will not provide the as great a level of consistency across plans as the other would be linked to the controversial terms. The linked terms should be options. defined to assist councils to share best practice approaches and make the May make the harder to use as more ways are developed to work around the smaller set plans easier to use for plan users that work across multiple plans. Without of defined controversial terms. considering any of the linked terms in plans this approach could create unintended consequences through the definition work. Overall evaluation This option is not considered to be the preferred approach because: it involve fewer costs for councils but could also open up council approaches to more risk and fewer benefits having only the controversial covered by the planning standards may have the effect of people having to focus their appeals on any related terms as people look for ways to work around the set definitions. it would be difficult for the Ministry for the Environment to resource this option as the determination around whether a particular definition is controversial (and not the related provisions) would be resource intensive (does not meet Objective 4)
Costs Benefits Option 2: definitions to the most controversial ones that are regularly debated and appealed (this would likely produce the smallest number of definitions of all of the options). Councils Amending plans to take into account the definitions will take significant time and resource for councils. Councils and plan users loss of any case law on specific definitions once the terms are re-defined increase in appeals on new definitions and how they are used in opportunity cost of not including a wider range of definitions that could assist with the implementation of regional plans. Ministry for the Environment, and central government resourcing costs are incurred in the development and testing of definitions determining which definitions are controversial would involve considerable resourcing and is likely to be subjective. General public Minimal costs to general public as they are likely to interact with only one plan. Councils Could remove some of the challenges around the definitions that are often debated and appealed (although often provisions and definition are appealed together). Plan users a clear understanding of controversial terms that will not be able to be challenged locally or amended any interpretation by the Environment Court or higher courts through declarations and appeals would apply across the country and provide greater certainty over time; although the benefits of this would be less with this option than the other options considered. Effectiveness and efficiency Effectiveness The option is not the most efficient. Some terms that are not controversial would be linked to the controversial terms. The linked terms should be defined to assist councils to share best practice approaches and make the plans easier to use for plan users that work across multiple plans. Without considering any of the linked terms in plans this approach could create unintended consequences through the definition work. Efficiency This option will not provide the as great a level of consistency across plans as the other options. May make the harder to use as more ways are developed to work around the smaller set of defined controversial terms. Overall evaluation This option is not considered to be the preferred approach because: it involve fewer costs for councils but could also open up council approaches to more risk and fewer benefits having only the controversial covered by the planning standards may have the effect of people having to focus their appeals on any related terms as people look for ways to work around the set definitions. it would be difficult for the Ministry for the Environment to resource this option as the determination around whether a particular definition is controversial (and not the related provisions) would be resource intensive (does not meet Objective 4)
Part%202C%20-%20Draft%20Definitions%20s32..docx