As taxpayers who could end up footing part of the bill, we must ask how this is happening. What are the councils thinking? Why have Auckland and Thames-Coromandel respectively developed more than $70m and $50m of residential property in the past two years? What are Christchurch and Waimakariri thinking by respectively consenting more than 67 and 40 homes?

But our councils are not really equipped with the tools to guide development strategically.

And climate change isn’t the only planning-related problem; our communities are buckling under the pressure of multiple challenges: lifeless down-towns, rising inequality, and collapsing infrastructure, to name a few. Presiding over the growth of these issues has been New Zealand’s Resource Management Act (RMA).

The challenge for our communities has been that our lame-duck planning legislation was not designed to plan. Instead, the RMA’s focus was simply to reduce any environmental impacts of development, rather than facilitate long-term, effective planning.

But, as the adage goes, failure to plan is planning to fail. We’ve seen this play out worldwide. Houston, Texas is one example, where the sprawling development onto the flood plains majorly exacerbated the flooding from Hurricane Harvey in 2017. This could have been avoided.

New Zealand is currently investing heavily in housing. It would be ludicrous to build new homes in areas that may be subject to forced relocation in the next few decades.

It is equally ludicrous not to follow best planning understanding in terms of how these homes can reinvigorate our existing communities and use the investment to offset our councils’ infrastructure woes.

In the 30 years since the RMA was introduced, the scientific understanding of city and community science has recognised the complexity and interconnectedness of these issues. We know that urban form (the layout of your neighbourhood) impacts your physical and mental health, carbon footprint, safety while walking home at night, and your community’s resilience in times of crisis.

We should therefore be guiding future development so that is not only is not exposed to sea-level rise but also intensifies existing communities in a mixed-use (ie, residential and commercial) way.

Not having legislation for strategic planning has led to the opposite: sprawling neighbourhoods with underutilised infrastructure and stagnant community centres. Where is the mixed-use development that we know is necessary for walkable, car-independent, safe, and economically vibrant communities?

The RMA reform includes a proposed Strategic Planning Act. It is an opportunity for us to enable and support planning that can address all the challenges confronting our communities.

This new legislation must be designed to embrace the burgeoning understanding about and tools to manage the complexities of communities and towns. These tools could be critical for underfunded local authorities as they strive for the “best bang for their buck” while juggling numerous planning objectives. The goal should be a systems approach for planning that facilitates multiple benefits and fosters community design that is health-promoting, provides transport freedom, fosters local economies, and is safe from New Zealand’s suite of natural hazards.

“Separating climate change adaptation from strategic planning would be counter to the integration we need,” Dr Tom Logan writes. Photo: Supplied / The-Press

One challenge for the legislation is that it must not be confused with the proposed Climate Change Adaptation Act. Separating climate change adaptation from strategic planning would be counter to the integration we need. Clearly, significant swathes of NZ communities will have to relocate due to climate change and their future location must be strategic. It must be done in a way that supports community vibrancy, cohesion, sustainability, and economies.

The timeframe for these two critical pieces of legislation simply is not good enough. The Strategic Planning Act is hoped to be passed within this term of government, but the Minister of Climate Change has said that the Climate Change Adaptation Act is only anticipated to be introduced – risking a change of government and failure to pass it.

We need both of these legislations fast. Failing that, give councils the teeth to prevent new houses from being built in threatened places.