Evaluation Report

A local authority must prepare an evaluation report for the proposed policy statement or plan in accordance with section 32 of the Resource Management Act.

The evaluation report must examine:

• The extent to which the objectives of the proposal are the most appropriate way to achieve the purpose of the Resource Management Act
• Whether the policies, methods, and rules are the most appropriate way to achieve the objectives of the proposal

In order to examine the above, the evaluation report must:

• Identify other reasonably practicable options for achieving the objectives
• Assess the efficiency and effectiveness of the policies, methods and rules in achieving the objectives by:
  • Assessing the benefits and costs of the effects of the policies, methods and rules (including increases or decreases in economic growth and employment) and if practicable, quantifying those benefits and costs
  • Assessing the risk of acting or not acting if there is uncertain or insufficient information about the subject matter of the policies, methods and rules

The evaluation report must contain a level of detail that corresponds to the scale and significance of the effects that are anticipated from the implementation of the proposal.

The Ministry for the Environment has published best practice guidance on the application of Section 32. 

What does “most appropriate” mean?

The local authority is required to examine each objective during an evaluation, but it is not necessary that each objective individually be the most appropriate way of achieving the purpose of the Resource Management Act. Objectives may interrelate and overlap in seeking to achieve sustainable management of natural and physical resources. ⁷³¹

The High Court has confirmed that the term most appropriate does not mean superior and that what section 32 requires is a value judgment as to what polices and methods are most appropriate when measured against the relevant objectives. ⁷³²  The High Court observed that “appropriate” means “suitable” and there is no need to place a gloss upon the word by incorporating that it be interpreted as meaning superior.

When must alternatives be considered?

Section 32 now requires an evaluation report to “identify other reasonably practicable options for achieving the objectives”. The Supreme Court considered when alternatives must be considered in relation to a previous version of section 32 which did not have that same requirement. The Supreme Court stated: ⁷³³

The need for consideration of alternatives will arise from the nature and circumstances of the application and the reasons advanced in support of it. Particularly where the applicant for the plan change is seeking exclusive use of a public resource for private gain and the proposed use will have significant adverse effects on the natural attributes of the relevant coastal area, this does not seem an unfairly onerous requirement.

Last updated at 9:30AM on January 8, 2015