Skip to main content.

4 Barriers to Performance

The report on the first round of reviews A Review of Council RMA resource consent processing performance – Round One identified six common barriers to performance:

  • acceptance of poor quality applications

  • delays in gaining information from other parties

  • tracking of resource consents

  • challenges presented by information and communications technology

  • shortage of consent officers

  • level of priority for meeting statutory timeframes.

The second round of reviews confirmed these findings. The common barriers to performance identified in the first round of reviews are summarised here, together with relevant observations from the second round of reviews. A full discussion of barriers to performance from A Review of Council RMA resource consent processing performance – Round One is included in Appendix 3.

4.1 Acceptance of poor quality applications

Good quality applications with the required information can generally be processed quickly and with less risk of mistakes. Some of the councils reviewed seemed to be accepting poor quality applications and rarely used section 88(3) to return poor quality applications at the start of the process.5 The councils tended to use section 92 instead to gain further information to allow processing of the application to continue. Most councils do not analyse section 92 requests to determine what further information could be asked for at lodgement.

Most public guidance on applications sets out to explain the RMA to a non-professional audience; however in many councils the majority of applications were prepared by professionals (eg, consultant planners, surveyors and architects) who already know (or should know) the basic information requirements.

Some councils addressed the professional audience quite actively. All of Tauranga City Council’s consent officers are each assigned one or more planning consultancies to liaise with. Auckland City Council has introduced a fast track process for applications lodged by accredited planners in a standard form. However the majority of councils did not have formal arrangements for feeding back detailed information on the quality of applications to the developer and/or the consultant communities. Knowing what information is consistently lacking could be used by professionals to prepare better quality applications.

4.2 Delays in gaining information from other parties

Consent officers at all the reviewed councils refer aspects of resource consent processing to other divisions of the council or to external agencies for comments and advice. The most common reason for referrals was infrastructure and engineering issues. Referrals (however well monitored or managed) inevitably use up processing time.

Consent officers are dependent on the level of priority other divisions of the council or external agencies give to assessing applications. Lack of priority was seen by consent officers at some councils to be a cause of delay. In many cases the councils reported that the other division either had a lack of resources to provide timely input or had a lack of appreciation of RMA timeframes and did not give referrals priority.

The councils were conscious that these referrals can cause delays and the majority of the councils had set expected turnaround times for input. These times were not always monitored carefully.

Another issue was whether many of these time-consuming referrals need to happen at all. For example, Grey District Council refers all resource consent applications to the asset management and building consents divisions for comment, which may not always be required.

4.3 Tracking of resource consents

Not all councils had robust electronic systems for their resource consents meaning that they cannot manage or report on what is not measured. We consider that an effective tracking system is essential to effectively manage resource consent processing.

Generally the tracking systems of councils reviewed captured the key dates in the process (for example, receipt date of the application, any section 92 requests, notification decision and final decision) and the statutory days taken to process the applications. The tracking systems usually recorded the days taken while an application was referred to another council division or external agency. Not all the tracking systems recorded section 37 time extensions meaning that these had to be entered manually.

While the councils reviewed had electronic tracking systems in place, the systems were not being used to their full extent to effectively manage workflow. Data was being collected but not analysed and used to make process improvements.

4.4 How councils apply the process

Councils’ standard processes are often too elaborate and time-consuming for most minor applications. There is no fundamental reason why the simplest applications could not be treated much more efficiently.

All the councils had some standard steps for processing applications. They often include checklists, site visits, referrals to other council divisions/external agencies, peer review and checks by managers.

The steps are generally appropriate for applications of average complexity and may well have been designed around them. However councils process the simplest applications through the same steps even though some of the steps may not be necessary.

4.5 Consent officers dealing with extraneous issues

Consent officers spend a lot of time on issues outside the core decisions needed to process minor applications. This includes assessing requirements that are regulated and enforceable under other legislation (eg, vehicle crossings, water and sewer connections, liquor licensing). There is scope for reducing these non-core tasks and improving processing times.

Councils probably deal with these unnecessary issues in minor applications so that the final resource consent (with its conditions) provides a complete picture of what the consent holder needs to do. It should be possible to communicate these (often very standard) requirements without using the consent as the vehicle.

4.6 Information and communications technology

Councils reported several types of problems with information and communications technology: obtaining and coordinating the outputs from different software systems across the council; software systems that were inadequate or had flaws in relation to tracking RMA timeframes; and not knowing how to get the best use out of the software systems they have. There are a number of different systems used nationwide. Most of these have been adapted to meet each council’s individual wants.

4.7 Consent officers reliance on paper

There was an almost universal concern among consent officers to record elements of the consent processing with paper, especially by recording their dealings with applicants in correspondence. This is time consuming and unnecessary. There could be savings of several days if email and the telephone were used in conjunction with written correspondence for formal steps in resource consent processing.

4.8 Complex planning reports and conditions for minor applications

Reports and conditions for minor applications were often long and complex. Reports often included multiple recitals of what the application was for, which plan provisions were relevant and why others did not apply. Even for a minor consent, report writing may take several hours.

Some districts are experiencing significant growth pressures, pressures beyond those anticipated in operative planning documents. In some places variations and plan changes have been made to manage the effects. Consent officers have needed to up-skill themselves on the variations and changes to the planning documents to process applications and the assessments under the various planning documents have become more complex. In the case of Auckland City there have been multiple plan changes that do not always complement each other. This adds extra difficulty for the consent officer in assessing the application.

Tauranga City Council uses a suite of non-statutory planning documents to manage growth in the district as the district plan did not anticipate the level of growth it is experiencing. This adds an extra layer of complexity to the assessment of applications and planning reports.

4.9 Shortage of consent officers

The majority of councils report difficulty in recruiting and retaining enough skilled planning staff to deal with the resource consent workload. There is a noticeable shortage of experienced planners with most consent officers having a reasonably low level of experience. Consent officers may not have the necessary skills and experience to assess more complex applications resulting in delays and an increased burden on senior staff.

Both Auckland City Council and Grey District Council had significant on-going vacancies and were relying on consultants to cover their workload. Managing consultants detracts from time consent officers are available to process consents.

Tauranga City Council’s pool of consent officers was affected by a major application that required project management over a long period, taking one senior staff member out of the processing pool for other applications.

4.10 Level of priority for meeting statutory timeframes

Having a culture in place within the resource consents team (and those other parts of the council that have input) that strives to meet the statutory timeframes was found to be one of the biggest factors in improving council performance. That is, the degree of importance given to compliance with statutory timeframes appears to influence timeframes.

The second round of reviews identified three additional common barriers to performance:

  • level of delegations

  • complexity of applications

  • problems with administering the district plan.

4.11 Level of delegations

Consent processing involves a number of key decision-making points. The delegation of authority to make these decisions impacts on the flow of applications through the process. Where a decision cannot be made by the consent officer processing the application a delay is caused in transferring the application to the decision maker.

The structure of delegations in some of the councils reviewed did not reflect the weight of the decision to be made and added additional steps in the process. The level of delegations may cause a bottle neck in the process as applications have to pass through one or two designated people before they can proceed. Processing days may be lost in waiting for the next scheduled meeting where a decision can be made. Additional administration work may be generated in preparing applications for consideration by a committee.

Each council determines their own delegations. What decisions are delegated and to whom may be based on a number of factors such as risk, transparency, customer service and accountability. The structure of delegations may reflect the priority the council places on timeliness in consent processing.

4.12 Complexity of applications

Complex applications inherently involve greater processing resource. The consent officer devotes more time to understanding and assessing the application. Technical or expert advice is likely to be required. As well as time being taken in obtaining technical and expert advice, this advice then needs to be applied in considering the application. Consent officers reported finding the transfer of expert and technical advice into appropriate consent conditions a difficult task. Negotiation between parties over draft conditions also causes delays.

The impacts of complex applications on work flow can linger. Monitoring the implementation of a complex consent places demands on other departments of the council that provide input into consent processing, particularly asset management and engineering. This monitoring work competes with the time these other departments have available to input into consent processing and can contribute to delays.

4.13 Difficulties administering the district plan

District plans determine which activities require resource consent, what status they have under the RMA and how they are to be assessed. District plans are developed to manage environmental outcomes; however they also have an impact on consent processing workflow. Particular plan provisions may generate a lot of consent applications. For example, Auckland City Council has 2500 to 3000 applications relating to trees each year. Other provisions can require detailed assessments. In other cases, the district plan has not been written in anticipation of the level of development being experienced. This can lead consent officers to rely on ‘work arounds’ and negotiations to bring about desired outcomes. This adds additional work and consequently time, to consent processing.

Councils often rely on plan changes and variations to update the plan to reflect the current situation. However where a number of plan changes and variations are proposed at the same time or do not complement each other, this can add further difficulty for the consent officer in assessing the applications.

5 Under section 88(3) of the RMA, councils can return incomplete applications to the applicant within five working days if the application does not include an adequate assessment of environmental effects of the information required by regulations.

[ |