Last week I was waxing lyrical about the proposed changes which will penalise councils for tardy processing of resource consents. I should have realised that any minor victory over bureaucracy is always invariably overshadowed by major counter offensives from the bureaucracy.

And so, such is the case with this week's announcement by Nick Smith that the government is looking to introduce a national standard for contaminated sites. On the face of it, this may seem a good idea as there is currently no agreed standard on how to deal with contaminated sites. However, the net effect of the proposed standard is to firmly pass the responsibility for dealing with such sites on to landowners.

Currently, regional councils have the responsibility for maintaining and updating contaminated site registers. Historically, most have not even passed this information onto local bodies and consequently, there has been a 'hit and miss” approach to dealing with such sites.

The proposed legislation will require an applicant applying to do a development on an affected site to supply considerably more information and engage a small army of consultants to help provide the required information.

So what, you may say? Isn't it desirable to protect the environment from developments on contaminated sites? This is a loaded question as it turns upon the definition and identification of such sites. The real problem is how regional councils have gone about the task of identifying the sites. Typically, they have just simply included any site with a use which may or may not lead to contamination. They are not saying that the sites are definitely contaminated but that they may be. And therein lies the rub. Landowners must now go to significant expense to prove whether or not a site is actually contaminated.

I have recently had personal experience of just how the process works (or doesn't). A client of mine was considering the purchase of a site in a small township in the Thames-Coromandel District. He learnt that the site was on the regional council's contaminated sites register. When he enquired as to the reasons why it was on the register he was told that it was because the site was thought to be previously used as a concrete manufacturing works. His investigations revealed that, in fact, it had never been used as such. He revisited the council offices only to be told that the main reason was the site adjoined where the old gasworks used to be. Again, my client went off and began researching this claim only to find that the old gasworks was nowhere near the subject site.

From this you can begin to imagine the potential for the bureaucracy to inflict unlimited cost and delays upon anyone unfortunate enough to be dealing with an allegedly contaminated site.

Ironically, this comes at the same time as the government wanting to streamline the resource consent process.

As they say, a camel is a horse designed by a committee.

Until next time, have a great week.