Part 5Pest management
Regional pest management plans
71Second step: satisfaction on requirements
If the council is satisfied that section 70 has been complied with, the council may take the second step in the making of a plan, which is to consider whether the council is satisfied—
- that the proposal is not inconsistent with—
- the national policy direction; or
- any other pest management plan on the same organism; or
- any pathway management plan; or
- a regional policy statement or regional plan prepared under the Resource Management Act 1991; or
- any regulations; and
- the national policy direction; or
- that, during the development of the proposal, the process requirements for a plan in the national policy direction, if there were any, were complied with; and
- that the proposal has merit as a means of eradicating or effectively managing the subject of the proposal, which means—
- the organism proposed to be specified as a pest under the plan or the organisms proposed to be specified as pests under the plan; or
- the class or description of organism proposed to be specified as a pest under the plan or the classes or descriptions of organisms proposed to be specified as pests under the plan; and
- the organism proposed to be specified as a pest under the plan or the organisms proposed to be specified as pests under the plan; or
- that each subject is capable of causing at some time an adverse effect on 1 or more of the following in the region:
- economic wellbeing:
- the viability of threatened species of organisms:
- the survival and distribution of indigenous plants or animals:
- the sustainability of natural and developed ecosystems, ecological processes, and biological diversity:
- soil resources:
- water quality:
- human health:
- social and cultural wellbeing:
- the enjoyment of the recreational value of the natural environment:
- the relationship between Māori, their culture, and their traditions and their ancestral lands, waters, sites, wāhi tapu, and taonga:
- animal welfare; and
- economic wellbeing:
- that, for each subject, the benefits of the plan would outweigh the costs, after taking account of the likely consequences of inaction or other courses of action; and
- that, for each subject, persons who are required, as a group, to meet directly any or all of the costs of implementing the plan—
- would accrue, as a group, benefits outweighing the costs; or
- contribute, as a group, to the creation, continuance, or exacerbation of the problems proposed to be resolved by the plan; and
- would accrue, as a group, benefits outweighing the costs; or
- that, for each subject, there is likely to be adequate funding for the implementation of the plan for the shorter of its proposed duration and 5 years; and
- that each proposed rule—
- would assist in achieving the plan's objectives; and
- would not trespass unduly on the rights of individuals; and
- would assist in achieving the plan's objectives; and
- that the proposal is not frivolous or vexatious; and
- that the proposal is clear enough to be readily understood; and
- that, if the council rejected a similar proposal within the last 3 years, new and material information answers the council's objection to the previous proposal.
Notes
- Section 71: replaced, on , by section 39 of the Biosecurity Law Reform Act 2012 (2012 No 73).
- Section 71(a)(iv): replaced, on , by section 6 of the Resource Management (Natural and Built Environment and Spatial Planning Repeal and Interim Fast-track Consenting) Act 2023 (2023 No 68).