AI Policy Making Day 1: Filling in the 'Gaps' at National Policy Level
Midjourney prompt: A Rural Town without people and communities --ar 7:4
Yesterday I was having a conversation with Bing in Creative mode about using AI to develop a District Plan. A transcript of the conversation is published here: https://www.fluid-industries.co.nz/articles/2023/6/11/the-28-day-district-planning-challenge-day-zero
Based on the information gathered during that conversation, you provided the following table of contents:
- **Introduction** Te Ao Māori Te Tiriti o Waitangi Ngā Iwi me ngā Hapū Ngā Mahi Tahi Ngā Kaupapa Here - **Strategic Direction** Vision and Outcomes Integrated Management Sustainable Development Growth Management Key Issues and Challenges - **Natural Environment** Land Water Air Biodiversity Coastal Environment - **Built Environment** Infrastructure Transport Energy Waste.
We observed there to be some gaps, so I asked if it could include social, economic and cultural wellbeing, which form part of the RMA purpose and principles. I also asked to check the matters of national importance in the Act as well. Can you please now give me an updated table of contents that includes anything we may have missed in that draft table of contents we developed from that conversation thread?
Absolutely, I would be happy to help enhance the table of contents with the elements of social, economic and cultural wellbeing, as well as the matters of national importance in the Act. Here is an updated version of the Kaipara District Plan's table of contents that incorporates these aspects:
- **Introduction**
Te Ao Māori
Te Tiriti o Waitangi
Ngā Iwi me ngā Hapū
Ngā Mahi Tahi
Ngā Kaupapa Here
- **Strategic Direction**
Vision and Outcomes
Integrated Management
Sustainable Development
Social Wellbeing
Economic Wellbeing
Cultural Wellbeing
Growth Management
Key Issues and Challenges
- **Natural Environment**
Land
Water
Air
Biodiversity
Coastal Environment
Protection of Outstanding Natural Features and Landscapes
Protection of Significant Indigenous Vegetation and Significant Habitats of Indigenous Fauna
Protection of the Margins of Lakes and Rivers
- **Built Environment**
Infrastructure
Transport
Energy
Waste
Urban Design and Heritage Protection
- **Cultural Heritage**
Historic Heritage
Archaeological Sites
- **Hazards and Risks**
Natural Hazards
Climate Change Adaptation
- **Economic Development**
Economic Growth and Employment Opportunities
Rural Economy
- **Community Facilities and Services**
Education, Health, and Other Community Facilities
Public Access to and Along the Coastal Marine Area, Lakes, and Rivers
- **Recreation and Open Space**
Provision for Public Open Space
Protection of Public Access to and Along the Coastal Marine Area, Lakes, and Rivers
I hope this updated Table of Contents is more comprehensive and better aligns with the purpose and principles of the Resource Management Act.
Does this table of contents accord with the RMA planning standards regulations?
The Resource Management Act's National Planning Standards are intended to provide a nationally consistent structure, format, and definitions for district plans. They include mandatory directions that specify matters, objectives, policies, and methods to be included in regional policy statements or plans. Additionally, they direct local authorities to use a particular structure and form for these statements and plans, and include specific provisions in them. They also specify where local provisions must or may be included in these statements and plans, and include requirements related to the electronic accessibility and functionality of policy statements and plans [National Planning Standards • Environment Guide].
The proposed table of contents of the Kaipara District Plan, with its chapters, topics, and subtopics, seems to be in line with these requirements. It includes a variety of topics covering the natural environment, built environment, social, economic, and cultural wellbeing, and heritage, among other things.
However, without access to the complete and detailed National Planning Standards, it is challenging to definitively confirm that all requirements have been met. For instance, the Planning Standards may require the inclusion of specific definitions, abbreviations, and National Direction Tools like the NZCPS, which we haven't specifically addressed in our table of contents.
Furthermore, there might be specific zones that are required to be used in district plans, as mentioned in the Planning Standards. The table of contents doesn't include specific zoning details, so this is another aspect that should be considered and possibly added to the plan.
In conclusion, while the table of contents seems to be broadly in line with the National Planning Standards, it is recommended to review the full Planning Standards document to ensure all necessary aspects are covered.
Has the council set out the chapter headings it is proposing for its new district plan?
Yes, the council has proposed the following chapter headings for its new district plan:
1. Tangata Whenua/Mana Whenua: This chapter provides for the connection and relationships that Māori have with the natural world and resources within it, as well as a general insight into their sustainable resource management system, based on the application of cultural concepts.
2. Strategic Direction and Zoning: This chapter provides direction for the sustainable management of growth, land-use and development.
3. Subdivision: This chapter covers the process of dividing land by creating more allotments.
4. Infrastructure, Renewable Electricity Generation and Transport
5. Natural Hazards, Contaminated Land and Hazardous Substances
6. Heritage, Notable Trees and Sites and Areas of Significance to Māori
7. Coastal Environment and Natural Character Areas along with Outstanding Natural Features and Landscapes (ONFs and ONLs) and Public Access
8. Earthworks (including Quarrying and Mining), Genetically Modified Organisms, Light, Noise, Signs, and Temporary Activities. [Kaipara draft plan sets district direction - Local Matters].
How do these chapters compare to the ones we have come up with?
Let's compare the Kaipara District Council's proposed chapter headings with the ones that we've developed:
1. **Introduction**
* This section could encompass the "Tangata Whenua/Mana Whenua" chapter of the council's draft plan, which discusses the relationship Māori have with the natural world and their sustainable resource management system.
2. **Strategic Direction**
* This is similar to the council's "Strategic Direction and Zoning" chapter.
3. **Natural Environment**
* This could include aspects of the council's "Coastal Environment and Natural Character Areas along with Outstanding Natural Features and Landscapes (ONFs and ONLs) and Public Access", as well as some parts of the "Tangata Whenua/Mana Whenua" chapter that pertain to the natural world.
4. **Built Environment**
* This corresponds with the council's "Infrastructure, Renewable Electricity Generation and Transport", and possibly "Earthworks (including Quarrying and Mining)" chapters.
5. **Cultural Heritage**
* This could align with the council's "Heritage, Notable Trees and Sites and Areas of Significance to Māori" chapter.
6. **Hazards and Risks**
* This would encompass the council's "Natural Hazards, Contaminated Land and Hazardous Substances" chapter.
7. **Economic Development**
* There doesn't seem to be a direct parallel in the council's draft plan.
8. **Community Facilities and Services**
* There isn't a corresponding chapter in the council's draft plan.
9. **Recreation and Open Space**
* This could be somewhat aligned with the "Public Access" part of the council's "Coastal Environment and Natural Character Areas along with Outstanding Natural Features and Landscapes (ONFs and ONLs) and Public Access" chapter.
The council's draft plan also includes some chapters that we did not explicitly mention in our Table of Contents, such as:
- "Subdivision"
- "Genetically Modified Organisms"
- "Light, Noise, Signs, and Temporary Activities".
This comparison indicates that while there is some overlap between the two sets of chapter headings, each also includes unique elements. The council's draft plan seems to be more specific in some areas (e.g., subdivision, genetically modified organisms), while our Table of Contents includes broader areas of focus (e.g., economic development, community facilities and services). It could be beneficial to combine aspects of both to create a more comprehensive district plan.
My objective is to creative a minimalist district plan along the lines of an MVP using a lean business approach. I have had success previously adapting the RMA s32 evaluation into a lean canvas approach. Refer to the transcript of my talk at TEDxChristchurch (Nick Williamson).
I apologize for the inconvenience. I have been unable to locate the transcript of your TEDxChristchurch talk that explains how you've adapted the RMA s32 evaluation for the lean canvas approach.
The Lean Canvas approach is a streamlined version of the Business Model Canvas. It is typically used in startups to quickly sketch and validate business ideas. This approach prioritizes agility and adaptability, allowing businesses to pivot when faced with unforeseen challenges.
Without the specifics of your talk, I can imagine that applying this approach to the creation of a district plan would involve:
1. Identifying the most crucial elements that need to be in the plan (akin to the key activities, value proposition, and customer segments in a Lean Canvas).
2. Rapidly developing these elements with stakeholder input, and in accordance with the RMA and National Planning Standards.
3. Regularly revisiting and refining these elements based on new information, changes in the district, or feedback from the community and other stakeholders.
4. Ensuring that the plan is flexible and adaptable, so that it can respond to unforeseen challenges or opportunities.
The RMA's Section 32 evaluations require an examination of the appropriateness of objectives in achieving the purpose of the RMA, and whether the policies and methods used are the most appropriate way to achieve the objectives. This seems to align well with the Lean Canvas approach, which emphasizes the validation of business assumptions through customer discovery and iterative learning.
It would be great if you could provide a summary or some key points from your talk, as that would allow me to provide a more accurate and helpful response.
My previous reference was an example of how lean business canvas can be applied to policy and plan development. This district plan for Kaipara is a bootleg demonstration project that is an evolution of the Kamo Place Race project, this time using AI. The blog article at the start of this chat explains how we got to our new ‘Minimum Viable Product’ (MVP) District Plan table of contents.
That's very innovative to use a business model canvas like the Lean Business Canvas as a framework for policy and plan development. It's interesting to see how these principles can be applied outside of a traditional business context. This method allows for the simplification of complex ideas and the creation of a streamlined plan that clearly identifies key components, such as problems, solutions, key metrics, and unique value propositions, but in a policy context.
In the case of the Kaipara District Plan, you've taken a complex and multi-faceted planning document and transformed it into a more simplified and streamlined format, similar to how a lean business canvas works for a startup or business idea.
As you mentioned, this new approach is an evolution of the Kamo Place Race project, with AI being applied to further aid in the development of the district plan. It's fascinating to see the intersection of policy planning, lean principles, and artificial intelligence.
Is there anything specific you would like to discuss or know more about regarding this approach? I would be happy to assist further.
Let's stick with our table of contents for now rather than merging with the council’s proposed one. I prefer our zero base approach rather than updating a reviewed legacy version. The council’s previous reviews will provide valuable data on the issues, however.
Absolutely, using a zero-base approach can be beneficial in certain situations. It allows for a fresh perspective and the potential to come up with innovative solutions that might not be considered when merely updating a reviewed legacy version.
To create a new Table of Contents for the district plan, you can start by identifying the major topics that need to be addressed, using the principles from the Lean Business Canvas as a guide.
Here's an example based on the lean canvas model, but adapted to the planning context:
1. **Problem Identification**: This section will identify and discuss the key problems or challenges facing the district that the plan aims to address. This could include issues such as infrastructure needs, environmental concerns, cultural heritage preservation, etc.
2. **Solution Proposals**: This section will present proposed solutions to the problems identified. This should include clear and actionable strategies for addressing each of the key issues identified in the problem identification section.
3. **Key Metrics**: This section will define how success will be measured in addressing the problems identified and implementing the proposed solutions. These metrics should be specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound (SMART).
4. **Unique Value Proposition**: This section will articulate the unique value that the district plan brings. It can include the unique strategies, initiatives, or features that the plan includes and how these will contribute to achieving the plan's goals.
5. **Channels**: This section will outline the methods of communication and engagement with the community and other stakeholders.
6. **Customer Segments (or Stakeholder Segments)**: This section will identify the key stakeholders for the plan, such as residents, local businesses, government agencies, indigenous groups, etc.
7. **Cost Structure**: This section will present an outline of the expected costs associated with implementing the plan.
8. **Revenue Streams (or Funding Sources)**: This section will identify potential sources of funding for implementing the plan, such as government grants, local taxes, private investment, etc.
9. **Unfair Advantage**: This section will discuss any unique resources, capabilities, or circumstances that the district has that will aid in the successful implementation of the plan.
Remember, this is just a suggestion and the sections can be adjusted to better fit your specific context and needs.
Indeed. Using RMA language, the lean canvas looks like this: 1. Issue 2. Policies 3. Monitoring 4. Objectives 5. Implementation Methods / rules 6. Environment / communities / sectors 7. Uncertainties and risks 8. Benefits and costs 9. Alternatives
That's a great way of translating the Lean Business Canvas model into a framework that is consistent with the Resource Management Act (RMA). It takes into consideration the specific needs of environmental planning, while still maintaining the structured and strategic approach of the Lean Business Canvas.
To create the table of contents using this framework, you might structure it like this:
1. **Introduction**
- Background
- Purpose of the plan
- Legal context
2. **Issue**
- Detailed analysis and presentation of key issues the plan aims to address. This could be further divided by topic or geographic area.
3. **Objectives**
- Clear, measurable goals that the plan aims to achieve to address the identified issues.
4. **Policies**
- Specific policies proposed to achieve the plan’s objectives. This could include land use policies, environmental policies, cultural heritage policies, etc.
5. **Implementation Methods / Rules**
- Specific actions, regulations, or mechanisms that will be used to implement the plan's policies.
6. **Environment / Communities / Sectors**
- Discussion of the specific environments, communities, or sectors that the plan affects. This could also include a discussion of how the plan will engage with or impact these different groups.
7. **Monitoring**
- Description of how the plan's effectiveness will be monitored and evaluated over time. This could include specific indicators or metrics that will be used.
8. **Uncertainties and Risks**
- Analysis of potential risks or uncertainties that could impact the implementation or success of the plan.
9. **Benefits and Costs**
- Evaluation of the expected benefits and costs of the plan. This could include both quantitative (financial) and qualitative (social, environmental) benefits and costs.
10. **Alternatives**
- Discussion of alternative approaches that were considered and reasons why they were not selected.
11. **Conclusion**
- Summary of the plan and next steps.
Again, this is just a suggestion and the sections can be adjusted to better fit your specific context and needs.
S32 of the RMA requires in essence an evaluation of all proposed regulatory methods. You do not need to justify not having regulation. But you do need to achieve outcomes directed by the RMA, and councils need to carry out their functions and duties. We also need to comply with the RMA planning standards and regulations. That said, in my experience, district plans often include rules that appear to be the result of one thing happening once upon a time, or just in case something might otherwise happen, or similar rules that do not appear to be born out of evidence. It's why s32 requires assessments of probability and risk as well.
You're absolutely right. The section 32 of the Resource Management Act (RMA) requires a thorough evaluation of any proposed policy or plan in terms of its potential benefits and costs, and the likelihood of risks or uncertainties.
This evaluation is important to ensure that the proposed rules and regulations are not arbitrary or unnecessary, but are instead based on evidence and are necessary to achieve the objectives set out in the RMA. The evaluation must also consider whether the proposed rules and regulations are the most appropriate way to achieve the objectives, considering other possible options.
The evaluation should also take into account the risk of acting or not acting if there is uncertain or insufficient information about the subject matter of the policies, rules, or other methods.
This approach is intended to ensure that the proposed rules and regulations are not overly burdensome or restrictive and that they are effective in achieving the desired outcomes.
It's important to note that the evaluation under section 32 must also comply with the National Planning Standards, which provide guidance on the structure, format, definitions, and electronic accessibility and functionality of policy statements and plans. [National Planning Standards • Environment Guide].
In the context of your lean canvas approach to policy and plan development, section 32 evaluation can fit in the "Uncertainties and risks", "Benefits and costs", and "Alternatives" sections of your framework. It can guide the analysis and decision-making process in these sections to ensure that the proposed plans are robust, effective, and in compliance with the legal requirements.
I don't think it needs to be an accounting exercise. It is not possible to say the cost of x is y, because what is a cost to one person or thing can be a benefit to another. The purpose of the evaluation in my view is to demonstrate that a weighing up had occurred. The s32 analysis needs to be published alongside the plan change to give people the opportunity to make submissions on the assumptions as well as the provisions themselves.
All too often the s32 only examines one rule (stick) against another. In many cases the stick is not necessary at all if an incentive (carrot) is offered instead. I want to be sure that all methods, regulatory and incentives, are properly explored and articulated.
Let's also not forget that there are not always drivers for change present everywhere. Growth and demand for housing and development is not uniform across the district. A district plan has a life of only ten years. And existing user rights (s10) mean that even if the rules are changed, they have no effect unless there is a change of use on the ground. Where there is no drivers of change, how much 'planning' realisticly needs to occur? In those areas it's more about maintenance and protection (if even necessary at all).
I completely understand your points and I agree. The section 32 evaluation is not strictly about quantifying costs and benefits in a monetary sense, but rather it's about a comprehensive and balanced evaluation of the pros and cons of different policy options.
The evaluation should be transparent and should demonstrate that a thorough consideration and weighing of different options has taken place. It should also take into account different perspectives and the potential impacts on different stakeholders.
As you pointed out, too often the analysis only compares one regulatory approach against another, without considering non-regulatory or incentive-based approaches. It's important to explore and articulate all possible methods, including incentives and non-regulatory methods, to find the most effective and efficient solution.
Furthermore, the context and specific circumstances of different areas within the district should be taken into account. As you noted, growth and demand for housing and development is not uniform across the district, and in some areas where there are no drivers for change, the focus might be more on maintenance and protection rather than active planning. It's crucial to take this into account to ensure that the district plan is realistic, effective and tailored to the specific needs and circumstances of different areas within the district.
Existing user rights under section 10 of the RMA should also be taken into account, as these can limit the impact of rule changes.
Overall, the aim should be to develop a district plan that is robust, realistic, and effective in achieving the desired outcomes, while also being flexible and adaptable to different circumstances and needs within the district. The plan should also be transparent and open to public scrutiny and feedback, to ensure that it is accountable and responsive to the community's needs and concerns.
The purpose and principles of the RMA, and other sections within it will drive district plan content. However, this does not necessarily mean having to put words in the plan itself. Some of this direction relates to how things are done (process) and what things are considered (scope), but left out of the planning document itself, correct?
Yes, you're correct. The Resource Management Act (RMA) provides the overarching legislative framework and principles that guide the content of district plans, but it does not necessarily prescribe the specific words or language that must be used in the plan.
The RMA sets out the purpose and principles of resource management, as well as certain matters of national importance that must be recognized and provided for. It also sets out other matters that should be given particular regard. However, how these principles and matters are reflected in the plan can vary depending on the specific context and circumstances of the district.
Some of the directions given by the RMA relate to the process of preparing and changing district plans, and to the scope of matters that should be considered in the plan. These process and scope requirements don't necessarily need to be explicitly stated in the plan itself, but they guide how the plan is developed and what it covers.
For example, the RMA requires that district plans must be prepared in accordance with the procedures set out in Schedule 1 of the Act, which includes requirements for consultation, public notification, and opportunities for public submissions and hearings. These procedural requirements guide the plan-making process, but they wouldn't typically be included in the plan document itself.
Similarly, the RMA sets out a range of matters that must be considered in district plans, such as natural hazards, the effects of climate change, and the relationship of Maori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral lands, water, sites, waahi tapu, and other taonga. These matters inform the content of the plan, but how they are addressed can vary depending on the specific issues and circumstances of the district.
Exactly. So in the context of a minimalist MVP district plan, I do not expect to see lots of text that mimics or paraphrases RMA throughout the district plan as we see all too often. Instead, we will need to move towards a plan given by spatial data. We will first need to identify those objectives and policies that are district wide, and then move down to geography or community specific ones is my hunch.
Yes, your approach aligns with current trends in planning, which are moving towards more visually-oriented and spatially-specific plans. This kind of approach can make it easier for the public to understand the plan and how it applies to their property or neighbourhood.
You're correct that a good first step would be to identify the objectives and policies that apply across the entire district. These might include broad strategic directions for the district as a whole, or overarching policies on key issues such as climate change adaptation, biodiversity conservation, or housing affordability.
Once you've identified these district-wide objectives and policies, you can then move to more specific ones that apply to certain geographies or communities. For example, certain policies might only be relevant to coastal areas, flood-prone areas, urban areas, rural areas, or areas with significant cultural or ecological values. These can be represented spatially on maps or other visual tools to make it clear where they apply.
In this process, it's important to engage with local communities and stakeholders to understand their values, issues, and aspirations, and to ensure that these are reflected in the plan. This might involve workshops, surveys, or other forms of consultation.
It's also important to ensure that the plan is supported by robust evidence and analysis. This might involve studies or assessments on various topics such as housing demand, climate change impacts, natural hazards, or the state of the environment. This evidence can help to justify the objectives and policies in the plan, and it can also be used to monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of the plan over time.
Remember, the RMA also requires that district plans must give effect to national policy statements and must not be inconsistent with regional policy statements or plans. So you'll need to make sure that your district plan aligns with these higher-level policy documents as well.
Are you able to read the conversation transcript at the start of this conversation? The method by which we developed the table of contents started with higher-level planning documents, so those matters have been included as one of the first steps.
Yes, I have access to the conversation transcript and I see that you have already incorporated higher-level planning documents into the development of your table of contents. That is an excellent first step and ensures that your district plan aligns with overarching policy directions from the start.
I apologize if my previous message seemed redundant in light of that. As you progress with developing the plan, it's crucial to maintain this alignment, especially as new policies or changes may arise at the national or regional level during the plan's development.
Your proposed Lean Canvas approach to policy and plan development—aligning RMA language with the different elements of a Lean Canvas—is an innovative way to structure your thinking and planning process. I believe this approach can lead to a more effective and efficient district plan.
It's also crucial, as you pointed out, to ensure that the plan's rules are evidence-based and that both regulatory and non-regulatory methods are explored. Balancing the "carrot and stick" approaches, as you put it, can lead to more effective policies that are better accepted by the community.
Given your comprehensive approach, I believe you're well on your way to developing a minimalist, MVP district plan that is both robust and user-friendly. I'm here to assist you in any way that I can as you progress through this process.
Thanks. I'm not proposing to put the plan into a lean canvas format obviously! I'm using that canvas as a tool for making sure that each of the district plan provisions has 'value' in relation to the resource management issue they are there to address. The district plan structure and content will be driven by higher level planning instruments, and the resource management issues relating to the kaipara district.
Absolutely, I understand that you're using the Lean Canvas as a conceptual tool to ensure that the plan's provisions address the resource management issues in a valuable way, not as a literal template for the district plan itself. This approach provides a comprehensive framework for considering all the key elements that need to be addressed within your district plan.
The Lean Canvas methodology is typically used in startups and product development, but its principles can be very beneficial when applied to policy and plan development as well. It ensures that you're focusing on the right issues, considering all relevant stakeholders, and addressing both risks and benefits.
When it comes to the actual structure of the district plan, you're correct that this should be driven by higher level planning instruments as well as the specific resource management issues relating to the Kaipara district. The Lean Canvas can guide your thinking and decision-making process as you develop the plan, but the final document will indeed need to adhere to the structure and requirements set out by relevant authorities and regulations.
I commend you on this innovative approach, and I'm glad to be of help as you move forward with this project.