5.0 Conclusion
Overall, 76% of hearings committees appraised by respondents were reported as showing an improved overall performance as a result of the MGDP.
The majority of subject hearings committees exhibited a general improvement across three of the four key competency areas, including the management of hearings, delivery of questions, and quality of decisions.
With regard to competencies relating to the management of hearings and delivery of the questions, some of the feedback suggests that many respondents believed evolving experience, in conjunction with the MGDP, to be a key factor in the changes observed.
The improvements observed in relation to the quality of decisions were often perceived by respondents to be a result of other factors such as the Resource Management Amendment Act 2005, and the subsequent development of new decision templates to meet the requirements of the Amendment Act, and in some cases the involvement of experience planning officers in the decision-making and decision-writing process.
The competency area exhibiting least change observed across subject hearings committees was in regard to issues surrounding 'impartiality'. Many respondents consistently commented that the improvement appears to have been more 'subtle' in this competency area, with many chairpersons reported to have exhibited a greater awareness of how others perceive their role in the hearing. This heightened awareness was reported by many to have 'formalised' or 'fine-tuned' existing hearings practice and procedures.
Across all competency areas where there had been little or no perceived changes in performance, some clear themes emerged, including:
- Where chairs, individual committee members or hearings committees as a whole were reported to have been operating at a high level prior to training. In such cases, respondents often commented that there was little room for improvement, or that the competency area was never in question prior to training. This trend was particularly applicable for the 'impartiality' competency area.
- Where less experienced committee members were not perceived to be gaining the necessary confidence in competency areas due to a lack of applied learning. In such cases, some of the findings suggest this may be due to either an over reliance by committee members on the chair to manage the hearings and questioning process, or a lack of facilitation or encouragement by the chair. This trend was particularly applicable for the 'questioning' competency area.
- Where the roles and responsibilities between hearings committees, reporting officers, and other planning roles within councils are not clear. Some of the feedback provided by respondents suggests there is considerable variation across councils in this regard, particularly in relation to the reporting officer's role during decision-making and decision-writing.
Other key influences on the performance of hearings committees identified by respondents include:
- In-house training. Several respondents commented on the value of having well-developed in-house training for hearings committees on the hearings and decision-making process.
- Staff training. Many respondents commented on the importance of having reporting officers attend regular training. In particular, the Ministry for the Environment/New Zealand Planning Institute Training for Reporting Officers, held September/October 2005 was often mentioned as being a valuable course that needs to be rolled out often given the high turnover of planners at junior levels. It was also consistently commented that for those who have already attended this course, 'refresher courses' would be of benefit.
- Senior management. Some respondents reported value in having senior management from local authorities also attending the MGDP to ensure the knowledge gained from the MGDP can be applied in a way that suits the particular practices, resources and needs of the council.
- Independent commissioners acting as 'coach'. A few respondents reflected on the positive impact an independent commissioner can bring to the hearings and decision-making process, particularly in the capacity of a 'coach' for new councillors on aspects of the hearings procedure and decision-making process, and also for bringing in professional expertise to assist with the process of decision-writing.
- Personality. It is clear with any type of training, some personalities are more open to learning than others. Notably, a few respondents commented generally on the perception that there are some personality types where no matter how much training is provided, the application of knowledge gained may be resisted, or not applied at all.
Overall, the key area of concern consistently reported by respondents included issues surrounding role definition, particularly in the decision-writing process. Specifically, the findings suggest that decision-writing is still being influenced by the involvement of reporting officers. This was generally viewed by consultant respondents to be a negative aspect of current hearings practice. However, many reporting officers perceived their involvement in the decision-making and decision-writing process to be critical in achieving a quality decision given the lack of technical ability in the decision-writing competency area of the hearings committee. A few reporting officer respondents also reported concerns with regard to the practicalities of implementing the hearings layout promoted in the MGD training workbook.
Overall, it is clear that the MGDP is generally perceived by the 40 resource management practitioners surveyed to have had a positive impact across key competency areas for individual hearings committee members, and hearings committees as a whole.
It is evident that the MGDP has had a greater impact on those less experienced committee members. However, while the changes observed for those more experienced committee members may not be as distinct, the MGDP appears to have provided positive benefits at a more 'subtle' level. This suggests a difference in training needs between the 'inexperienced' and 'experienced' and may help inform future training needs as the MGDP is further developed.
