The Dirty Side of Growth - Part 1

We plan for growth, we plan for urban expansion, we have strategic plans, growth management plans, structure plans. We plan quite well for urban growth. Or do we? Are we actually planning for growth or just to fit more people into our cities?

Do we plan for all the things that support urban growth? Urban growth requires concrete, it needs aggregate, more people require more water and produce more waste, they need more food. More land fills are needed and we need more cleanfills. But all those things that support growth, that’s the dirty side of growth, the part that doesn't get given as much attention. The part that is quite difficult for anyone that wants to do it.  Without good foundations you have a poor quality building that won't last. Without planning for all the activities that support growth, can you sustain it? 

I plan for growth pretty much every week, but its not in the way that you might think. About three years ago now I met with the director and business manager of a cleanfill company. Since then I have done about 25 consents for fill sites. Combined, probably around 1.6 million cubic metres of fill sites. That amount of fill is generated by about 700,000 people a year. Ironically, I have done more planning for growth helping to find sites for cleanfills and getting them consented than I ever did as a policy planner or by doing capacity studies. 

So why do we give these activities less importance when we plan for growth than urban development? Why are consents for these activities sometimes difficult? And what can we do to fix it?  This is the first in a three part series that investigates issues with consenting activities that support growth, how we can address it using policy and how we can address it during the resource consent side.

In my experience a large part of the problem is that often planners and the general public have a pre conceived idea of these activities.  These activities are seen as noisy, dirty, and a nuisance  You only have to look to the media to read about another crusade against one of these activities.

Quite often, the reality is not as bad as what people think.  Quarries aren't actually dusty, trucks on the road operate within noise limits, erosion and sediment controls stop most sediment loss.  Often however once momentum builds in a community to oppose on of these activities, people can lose site of what the effects are likely to be.

Often some people also have a different expectation to how much noise they should be able to hear and what should go on around them than the plan expects.  Some people live in General Rural environments but want the idyllic countryside lifestyle anticipated by the Plan in a Countryside Living zone.  This is mainly our fault as planners for not getting people involved when the plan was written.  Its also a sign of that we need to communicate to people how the resource consent process works, what matters can be considered and what can't.

 In most instances with a consent application you are stating what the effects are.  With consents for these activities you are forced into assessing what effects won't be.  

Sir Geoffrey Palmer stated in interviews for the Ninth Floor "Proving a negative is never easy...the public is like a jury".  He was talking about American warships coming to New Zealand that could neither confirm or deny the presence of nuclear warheads.  But the comment is relevant to the challenge of consenting these types of activities.

The reality is that we need these activities or we will add to the costs of growth.  The further away we force these activities to go and the more unnecessary hoops we have to jump through, the more we are creating unintended consequences.  Aggregate becomes more expensive, fill disposal becomes more expensive and these costs are passed on to contractors, builders, developers and ultimately rate payers or house purchasers.  And then we wonder why housing is becoming more unaffordable.

If we are going to be successful in our efforts to plan for growth, if we are going to look back at our efforts in 20 years time and think we have done a good job, we need to plan holistically for growth and we need to give more importance to all the activities that support growth.  

The following posts in this series will look at 

• How to approach the dirty side of growth with policy

• How to approach the dirty side of growth with resource consent processes.