Skip to main content.

5 Summary of Individual Council Findings

A copy of the findings for each council was provided to the council for review and verification. The following is a summary of the main findings.

Franklin District Council (FDC)

The overall performance against statutory timeframes has improved; however resource consent numbers have dropped off quite significantly since the survey period.

The majority of applications received are processed in-house.

FDC has retained experienced staff with qualifications and understanding of the RMA.

There is a positive staff morale and culture within the resource consents team.

Staff appear to have confidence in resource consent processing because of their experience and knowledge of the district and are communicating well with applicants and agents on applications.

The turnaround times for internal assessments and comments are now faster and this is resulting in decisions being made in a timely manner.

The main reasons for non-performance against statutory timeframes are as follows:

  • Lack of active management of resource consent applications – FDC has a management and reporting system in place to enable active management of the timeframes. However, the system is not being used to do so. Consent officers manage their individual workloads and there is no follow-up from management on meeting timeframes.

  • Time lost in coordinating further information – FDC has a high use of section 92. Delays are occurring when the consent officer is waiting for engineer and health officers to assess the application and provide comment on what further information is needed to process the application further. FDC does not undertake any assessment of information lacking from an application in order to improve public information or target particular information types or communicate deficiencies with applicants/agents.

  • Time lost gaining engineering advice – Additional resource has been put into this area and turnaround times have improved; however the five working day target is not always met.

  • Changing policy environment – FDC notified a plan change in September 2003. The plan change replaces the existing district plan provisions relating to rural areas with stricter provisions in order to manage growth and its impact on the rural and coastal environments in Franklin. The council’s decisions (released in July 2006) are currently under appeal and consent officers must undertake a weighting exercise to make decisions on applications until the final decisions of the appeal are made. The weighting exercise has resulted in lengthy and complicated planning reports that take more time to prepare and peer review.

Kaipara District Council (KDC)

There has been a noticeable improvement in processing performance. There has also been a reduction in the number of applications requiring further information.

The recruitment of experienced consent officers has been an issue for KDC. KDC contract out all of their resource consent processing to an environmental consulting firm based in Whangarei.

The number of resource consent applications received by KDC has increased by 10 per cent from last year. The number of large subdivision applications (eg, coastal subdivision) has increased.

KDC do not use section 37 to extend statutory timeframes when processing applications.

Delays are occurring when making a decision on notification, where a decision is sometimes made beyond the statutory timeframe (ie, beyond 10 working days). This is due to the inclusion of section 93/94 notification advice into the planning assessment report provided by the consultant near the end of the process.

The main reasons for non-performance against statutory timeframes are as follows:

  • Lack of clarity and agreement with contracting arrangements between KDC and the consultants – The consultants have provided services to KDC for several years. A contract for the services has been recently reviewed and renewed for three years, with a further two one-year rights of renewal. The contract was not made available to the MfE review team. However, it was the impression of the MfE review team that the new contract has not improved outcomes. This matter is to be discussed further between KDC and the consultants. Uncertainty stills remains between KDC and the consultants in terms of the length and detail of the consultants planning reports. KDC consider that the consultant’s reports are too lengthy and detailed especially for simple applications.

  • Time lost when transferring applications between KDC and the consultants – Delays are occurring in transferring applications received by KDC to the consultants. For example an application typically takes five working days to get through the KDC and consultants administration systems to the consent officer. This affects the ability to exercise section 88(3) if the application is incomplete. Delays are also occurring when conditions of resource consents are being drafted and finalised.

  • Inconsistent resource consent management and reporting systems – KDC and the consultants maintain separate management and reporting systems. There is no consistency between these systems and discrepancies between the two datasets have emerged (eg, reconciliation of data for the monthly report) and the accuracy of reported data questioned. Consent officers do not have any access to resource consent information after applications are given to the consultant for processing. All queries, including simple questions such as ‘where is the application at in the process?’ cannot be answered by consent officers and are subsequently directed to the consultants.

  • Time lost in the engineering area – Of the applications received by KDC, 70 per cent are subdivision applications that require engineering input. The consultants do not have in-house engineering capacity and any engineering input is provided by KDC’s asset management team. However, providing a timely response on applications referred to them for comment does not appear to be a high priority.

Manukau City Council (MCC)

There has been a consistent improvement in processing performance since the survey period. From July 2006 to February 2007, the average number of resource consents (non-notified) processed within the statutory time limits was 59 per cent.

MCC has a relatively full complement of resource consent processing staff. MCC handles a large volume of resource consent applications (on average 2000 non-notified resource consent applications a year).

Since the appointment of a new chief executive officer at MCC, the council has under gone significant restructuring, including establishing the Environment Directorate. The new management team for the Environment Directorate has focused on streamlining resource and building consents processes and findings ways to improve the service the resource consents team provides. Initiatives to achieve this include the replacement of an outdated database system so it now captures time and labour data and the introduction of a case leadership concept that is currently being trialled (the latter initiative focuses on achieving enhanced environmental outcomes).

The main reasons for non-performance against statutory timeframes are as follows:

  • Inadequate resource consent management and reporting system in place – MCC has multiple database systems in place and this does not assist the processing of applications. The council is unable to track applications to the detailed level that they would be happy with, monitor workloads or section 92 timeframes. Without a coherent database system in place, it is difficult to ascertain where the time is going when processing an application; and measure and manage workflow effectively across the resource consents team.

  • Recording of relevant data – Relevant information on processing an application (for example, when an application is ‘on hold’ and ‘off hold’) cannot be recorded. Without this consistent and correct information being recorded, tracking the team and an individual planner’s workflow is difficult and knowing where the ‘blockages’ in the process is limited.

  • Time lost in obtaining advice from internal staff. It is apparent that significant time is being lost when the consent officers are trying to gain advice on applications and specifics on resource consent conditions from other internal staff. For example, delays are occurring when an assessment of an application is required from an engineer. This can take between three days and three weeks depending on the complexity of the application and the current workload of the engineer. Other delays can occur when coordination between staff is required for site visits, use of section 92 requests and finalising resource consent conditions. These delays can have a flow-on effect for the rest of the processing time, where delays are occurring in report writing and making a final decision on the application.

Taupo District Council (TDC)

TDC has shown an improvement in processing times with significant changes to their resource consent processes and systems since the survey. The TDC Chief Executive recognised the council’s non-performance in resource consent processing and subsequently commissioned a report to investigate reasons for the non-performance and seeking suggestions for improvement.

The culture of the resource consents team has changed and the focus is now on complying with statutory timeframes and linking this to regular reporting to management and the council. Staff incentives for meeting statutory timeframes are now in place to encourage compliance.

The recruitment of experienced consent officers was an issue for TDC.

TDC has seen a steady increase in the number of resource consent applications, with a drop off in the last survey period.

Performance against statutory timeframes has increased dramatically since the end of the survey period. Resource consents processed on time are now reported to be at or close to 100 per cent for the last six or more months.

TDC had transferred a number of previous responsibilities of consent officers to administrative staff, such as answering public enquires. This enabled the consent officers to focus on resource consent processing.

TDC provide consent officers with incentives to meet statutory timeframes. These are non-monetary incentives, such as additional annual leave.

The report suggested that in 2005, TDC had problems with staff taking a relaxed attitude to legislative requirements (timeframes and giving reasons for resource consent decisions for example), and other parts of the council gave low priority to contributing information to enable fast processing of resource consents (engineering, parks and recreation staff for example).

The report also noted there was concern over non-compliance with statutory timeframes amongst the development community.

The recommendations of a consultants report in November 2005 were to be phased in over nine months (ie, up until August 2006) so would not have been completed by the time the data collection for the 2005/2006 survey was in.

Several external parties have also caused issues for TDC by opposing many developments and claiming affected party status for most applications. Recent plan changes that have introduced structure planning and stricter requirements on developments in several areas now seemed to have reduced this problem.

TDC gave the following reasons for past poor performance:

  • high turnover in staff in the Resource Consents Unit

  • increasing numbers of complex applications

  • overuse of section 92 (due in part to low use of section 88(3))

  • delays in the receipt of information from other parties (Transit NZ for example)

  • delays in scheduling of hearings.

Waimakariri District Council (WDC)

The council’s performance has improved since the survey without major changes to their systems.

The number of applications WDC has received since the survey has dropped.

WCC have retained experienced staff.

It should be noted that the number of complaints on timeliness could not be verified.

The main reasons for non-performance against statutory timeframes are as follows:

  • Lack of active management of resource consent applications – WDC has a management and reporting system in place. However it is not suitable for tracking resource consent processing. Consent officers are left to manage their individual workloads and do so by using separate spreadsheets. There is no regular reporting of the resource consent processing or the teams’ performance to management.

  • Duplication of processes with the regional council – Of the applications received by WDC, 50 per cent are for septic tanks. Applicants who are seeking resource consent for septic tanks from WDC must also gain resource consent from Environment Canterbury.

  • Customers are not time sensitive – Applicants in the Waimakariri District often lodge applications with the council at an early stage and with minimal information included. They are then happy to let the application move through the process (at the pace the council can handle on the day) without complaint.

[ |