Chapter 8: Interaction with the processes for environmental consents
Approximately 26 submitters commented on issues relating to the proposed regime’s interaction with the environmental consents processes.
On this page
Decision making for environmental consents
The discussion document sought feedback on whether a single consent authority should be responsible for environmental consents under both the Resource Management Act 1991 and Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf Act 2012.
Submitters almost unanimously supported having a single consent authority responsible for environmental consents in both the territorial sea and exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Submitters noted that a single consent authority would ensure consistency and speed up the process, provide a clear pathway for public engagement, reduce duplication, and reduce risk for developers. Some submitters noted the existing provisions that allow for a board of inquiry to consider applications spanning both the territorial sea and EEZ.
Interaction between permits and environmental consents
The discussion document stated that, alongside the proposed permits, projects will be required to obtain environmental consents before construction can begin. The discussion document sought feedback on how duplication can be avoided, whether the environmental consent process adequately considers environmental effects and whether the permitting regime should consider the capability of a developer to obtain environmental consents.
Most submitters either agreed or partially agreed that the environmental consent processes adequately consider environmental effects. Submitters said that where any overlap between the permit process and the consent processes exists, there should be clear guidance indicating how the overlaps would be considered and addressed. A couple of environmental advocacy groups highlighted that the lack of spatial planning or whole-of-ocean approach may create some difficulties. However, submitters stated that these issues do not need to be addressed in the permitting regime and could be explored as part of changes to environmental consent processes.
Most submitters supported including an assessment of the applicant’s capability to obtain environmental consents in the criteria for both feasibility and commercial permits. Submitters noted that assessing capability at the feasibility stage is necessary to properly understand the overall suitability of an applicant. Submitters suggested this could involve considering the applicant’s ability to fund and submit an environmental impact assessment, understanding of environmental consent processes, environmental data collection to date, prior environmental performance and plans for obtaining a consent. However, some submitters commented these factors would be difficult to assess at feasibility and would be more appropriately considered as part of the readiness of the project criterion at the commercial stage. Submitters also noted any assessment of a developer’s ability to obtain resource consents should not pre-empt or bind the environmental consent processes.
Optimal sequencing of permits and environmental consents
The discussion document sought feedback on the optimal sequence of the permitting and environmental consent regimes and environmental consents being obtained before commercial permits.
Most submitters supported the proposed sequencing – feasibility permits, then environmental consents, then commercial permits. Submitters noted that this sequence would provide certainty for the project before final investment decisions were made. It would also prevent any period of the commercial permit duration being taken up with obtaining environmental consents. Those who disagreed with the proposed sequencing stated that any prescribed sequence would lead to delays overall. Some submitters suggested there may need to be some flexibility to allow for a parallel process or overlapping of the environmental consent and commercial permit processes. This flexibility would provide the best opportunity to save time in obtaining all necessary permits and consents.
One-stop shop for permitting and consenting
A single decision-making body for both environmental consents and permitting decisions was not proposed in the discussion document. However, a few submitters appeared to have interpreted the options discussed in this chapter as proposing a single decision-making body for consenting and permitting decisions. Comments supporting a ‘one-stop shop’ approach included that such an approach:
- would streamline the process and minimise costs to developers, as well as provide a clear pathway for public engagement;
- could avoid both duplication and any gaps that may occur with separate processes; and
- could lead to greater efficiency for the government, reducing the overall time taken to consider applications.
Opponents to a ‘one-stop shop’ approach expressed some caution that:
- local government and iwi involvement would be necessary;
- this option would need a pool of highly specialised decision-makers given the complexity of issues being considered; and
- the alignment of the purpose and decision-making criteria with the RMA and EEZ Act would need to be carefully considered.
The consent environment for offshore renewable energy
The discussion document sought feedback on the potential challenges that might impact offshore renewable energy developments and how the location of developments might impact the environmental consent processes.
Several submitters commented on the need for further guidance on the data that will need to be collected to obtain environmental consents and how decisions will be made. Developers also suggested that further consideration be given to the RMA and EEZ Acts, to ensure any requirements for offshore renewable energy apply equally over both jurisdictions. This included suggestions for a National Policy Statement for offshore renewable energy, or amendments to the National Policy Statement on Renewable Electricity Generation (currently being developed) to make it apply to both the territorial sea and the EEZ.
Factors influencing the optimal location of offshore renewable energy developments
The discussion document sought feedback on the factors that may influence decisions to pursue development in the EEZ versus the territorial sea. Previous engagement underscored project economics, landscape character, amenity value, environmental impacts and existing or future uses as key considerations.
Submitters generally agreed that the factors influencing where offshore renewable energy is developed will be location-specific and driven by economic considerations. Specifically, submitters noted the relationship between greater wind speeds further from shore, which provide greater economic potential for a wind farm but come with greater infrastructure costs compared to sites located closer to shore. Submitters said proximity to ports and existing transmission infrastructure and desire to minimise environmental and cultural impacts were also relevant.