All posts in the topic Resource Consent Process Questions (Was: Re: Fw: Canterbury Energy strategy) (Short link)

Jun 26 00:11 UTC

I will deal with this first, which I had written, then later reply to
Tim Kerr:

"Might try to get to:

Event: *Public Talk:  An overview of the resource consents process with
reference to the Central Plains Water Scheme*
Speaker: Donald Fraser, Consents Hearing officer, ECAN
Where: Canterbury WEA, 59 Gloucester Street
When: Wednesday 25 June, 1.30 - 2.30pm.
Cost: $4.
Contact: Phone 366 0285. All welcome!"

I was hoping to elucidate for myself the deliberation about costs and benefits
of various resource consent applications. Maybe someone can speed up my finding
out.

My understanding was that if someone applies for consent to set up a
restaurant, that other local restauranteurs cannot succeed in opposing the new
one solely on the grounds that it may affect their business.
(That being said there does seem to be protection for some large retail
'parks', or there is proposed to be, for the new 'key acttivity centres')

And an application for resource consent to build a building cannot be denied on
the grounds that the developer may fail when it is only half finished, I
understand.

But the answer to me by Donald Fraser, when I brought up those questions, was
only to say that CPW submitters had been presenting economic evidence. He did
not attempt to give me an overview of how economic evidence bears on resource
consents. (He had also answered, earlier in the lecture, that a cumec is 1000
cubic meters. When asked over what period, he said in perpetuity. Whereas it is
actually 1000 litres per second!)

The GMO Onions &c.

Submitters on the GMO onions and garlic and leeks application have been sent
instructions about preparing to present at the hearings:

 "In the case of containment
	applications, material should be relevant to the circumstances of
	the containment application as compared to those of a general
	release application.  This applies to information on benefits as
	well as information on risks."

and:

"The law requires that the Committee only consider submissions relevant
to this application. Submissions relating to any possible future
commercial release of alliums (or any other GMO) cannot be considered,
as they are beyond the scope of this application."

But the applicant does relate of potential long term benefits, as they
see them. One of those is that of reduction, as they see it, of
pesticide use. That relates to wider releases to the field.

So it seems necessary to spend time rebutting that.  Then will both the
applicant and my submission have that part disallowed?

Back to CPW. One of the class referred me to some economic submissions.
One of those was Professor Tim Hazeldine's.

http://www.ecan.govt.nz/NR/rdonlyres/2BD3260B-9591-4182-B1C6-2AC79918D8CA/0/HearingEvidenceTimothyHazledine.pdf

He dissolves many misconceptions in the CPW economics case, and in what
the newspapers have said to the public.

Further he says:
"it is my
understanding that the process – rightly or wrongly – does require the
approval
of the proposed use by the applicants of the water and in this setting
it is indeed
desirable that any opportunity cost of the ‘raw’ water be identified and
quantified."

and:again of the CPW economic analysis:

"I consider these analyses to be generally of little use, because they
pay no heed
to the supply side of the story. They rarely note that economic activity or
employment “boosted” in one region must be reduced by a nearly equivalent
amount somewhere else. Apart from adjustment costs, there are no particular
normative implications to a change in location of activity, at least not
at the
national level relevant under the RMA."

So I need someone to explain to me in which RMA matters an Application's
intent must avoid spoiling it for the other businesses, and in which it
needn't. Then how to know whether the potential harm to other business
of  potential long term benefits can be dealt with by the hearing.

Tim Kerr wrote:
> Hi Brian, I take you point about my comments "if the price is low more
> people will use it."
>
> I think - though maybe someone can correct me on this.... that clothing is
> relatively cheaper now than in the past. The net result has been that people
> now BUY or OWN more clothing - but wear less of it!
>
They do not wear less clothing as your 'result' of cheaperness. They
wear less because it is less uncomfortable to pay the extra electricity
bill rather than put on a jersey.

[...]
> So, lower prices have lead to an increase in clothing purchased - but the
> purposes of the clothing have also changed.
>
> The garments people wore up to the late 1950's reflected the poorly heated
>
You say poorly heated but I say that with the cheap, not heavy, padded
coats available today the heat of then would be more than adequate today.

> aircraft, cars, trams and workplaces they had to work, live and travel in.
>
>
>
>
>> A dust mask or even a couple of handkerchiefs tied around the nose can
>> keep it warm. A motorcycle cold weather mask could be better.
Sorry I have checked today and the ones I could find here cover the nose
but do not use the expired heat to warm incoming air.

I couldn't find anything like this even though I went to pharmacies, too:

http://www.yrret.stirsite.com/page/page/5215742.htm

All posts in the topic Resource Consent Process Questions (Was: Re: Fw: Canterbury Energy strategy) (Short link)

Add to the topic Resource Consent Process Questions (Was: Re: Fw: Canterbury Energy strategy) [?]