Skip to main content.

5 Summary of Individual Council Findings

5.1 Auckland City Council (ACC)

Overall performance against statutory timeframes remain similar to those during the survey period. Section 37 has been applied to all applications since January 2007.

A ‘fast track’ process for applications lodged by accredited planners in a standard form has been introduced. Eighty per cent of fast tracked consents are processed within 20 working days. At present seven per cent of applications go through this process, the target is for this to grow to 20 per cent.

ACC has had ongoing staff shortages in the consents area for the last five years. There are 37.3 full-time equivalent (FTE) positions for planners with nine vacancies including two at a senior level. The average level of experience for the consent officers is 1.5 years, adding a burden to the senior staff. Consultants are being used to cover peak flows and to deal with the more complex applications when there are not enough experienced consent officers to do so. Consents processed by consultants tend to take longer. ACC is now looking to recruit planning technicians as well as qualified planners to fill its vacancies.

The main reasons for non-performance with statutory timeframes are:

  • Poor quality applications – Staff estimate that 80 per cent of applications are prepared by non-professional staff and the quality of these applications is variable. Some applications made by professionals are also of poor quality. ACC had a lodgement system in place over the survey period where an applicant had to make an appointment to lodge an application. This has now been replaced by a senior planner reviewing all applications for completeness when they are lodged. Thirty-three per cent of applications are returned to applicants under section 88 as they are incomplete. Not all applications are fully assessed for completeness within the five working days specified in section 88, with any incompleteness being dealt with by a section 92 request for further information.

  • Time lost in getting advice from specialists within the council – The target turnaround time from other departments within the council is five working days. These targets are frequently not met however and in the worst cases can take several months. Turnaround from traffic engineering, heritage and urban design is especially problematic. In some cases the delays are caused by a lack of available specialist staff. In other cases it appears to be due to a lack of appreciation of RMA timeframes.

  • Problems with information and communications technology – The software system used by ACC in processing consents has a number of challenges. This system is no longer supported by the supplier. Staff need to enter the same information into several software applications and sets of forms. Most of the templates are out of date and internal processing guidelines have not been updated for several years. This creates time delays. Some of the administrative staff used their own manual spreadsheets for recording tasks and timeframes instead of entering data into the electronic tracking systems.

  • District Plan rules generate a lot of applications – Tree controls generate 2500 to 3000 applications each year. Heritage controls in many inner suburbs also generate a significant number of applications. Urban design controls add time and complexity to applications.

  • Level of delegation – Decisions are not delegated very far down the reporting structure compared with other councils. Many applications go to a council committee for decision. Others go to community boards for comment. The administration of these processes can take almost 20 working days.

  • Time spent on tasks other than consent processing – Consent officers also have to process applications under the council’s bylaws such as signs and liquor certificates. This takes time away from processing resource consents.

5.2 Tauranga City Council (TCC)

Overall performance against statutory timeframes is similar to that during the survey period. However TCC completes 90 per cent of non-notified applications within 30 statutory days and its end to end processing times (the actual time taken as experienced by applicants) are short compared with other councils reviewed.

TCC experiences peaks in applications during the year around financial year end dates (31/04, 30/06). There was a significant peak in applications prior to development contributions coming into effect on 01/07/2004, many of which were of low quality. The workload created flowed through into the 2005/06 survey period.

TCC’s consent processing systems are designed around quality, certainty of outcomes and providing for professional development rather than conformance with statutory timeframes.

TCC has a lodgement system where a lodgement officer meets with applicants when they are lodging their applications to ensure all the required information is submitted. However there is no feedback between the lodgement officer and consent officers on application quality.

The main reasons for non-performance with statutory timeframes are:

  • Time spent on tasks other than consent processing – There are 12 FTE consent officers however only 40 per cent of their collective time is allocated to consent processing. Consent officers also certify survey plans and do policy planning. One staff member works solely on a major subdivision project; another is setting up an in-house unit to do planning work for other council departments. There is also less administrative support available to the consent officers than in some of the other councils reviewed.

  • Difficulties with administering the district plan – Since the district plan was written Tauranga has experienced significant growth pressures. In response, TCC developed smart growth policies. These are implemented through various strategies and structure plans. Many of these policies are not incorporated into the district plan. For example, a mix of densities is central to the smart growth policies but is not reflected in the district plan’s minimum lot sizes. This means that more time is spent negotiating with developers, there are more notified applications and a greater likelihood of appeal.

  • Complexity of applications – Much of the workload is large subdivisions, the processing of which is inherently and unavoidably complex. Many applications also need to be assessed against the city’s significant flood hazards.

  • Time lost in getting specialist advice from within council – TCC does not record turnaround times for referrals to other council departments. A review of some files and anecdotal evidence suggests that there are delays in this area.

5.3 Kaikoura District Council (KDC)

Overall performance against statutory timeframes is similar to that during the survey period. However several outliers (mostly large subdivisions) skew the average of the small dataset for Kaikoura (97 consents).

KDC has a very low number of Section 92 requests (18 per cent). This means that the actual delays experienced by applicants are typically shorter than in other districts.

The main reasons for non-performance with statutory timeframes are:

  • Level of delegations – All decisions other than those for controlled activities or restricted discretionary activities with bulk and location exceeded by less than 20 per cent are made by the Hearings and Applications Committee. This committee meets once every two weeks. Waiting for the next committee meeting can cause a delay of up to 10 working days.

  • Constraints on resources – There is little resilience within the system as there are only three consent officers (two of whom also deal with policy planning) and less than one FTE engineer. KDC’s software systems are not integrated so there is some double handling in processing and tracking consents. Around 40 per cent of applications are prepared by non-professionals. This means staff need to provide more hands on guidance than in larger councils where 90–95 per cent of applications are made by professionals.

  • Time lost in referring applications to others for advice – The most common internal referral is to engineering. There is a five working days turnaround target, however depending on workload this may not be met. Delays also occur because many consents are referred externally to Transit, New Zealand Historic Places Trust and Te Runanga O Kaikoura for comment.

5.4 Grey District Council (GDC)

Resource consent numbers have increased since the survey period with performance against statutory timeframes has remaining the same.

The majority (75–80 per cent) of applications are processed by consultants.

Since the survey period, GDC increased its staffing allocation for resource consent processing from two FTE to three FTE staff. However there has been one FTE vacancy at most times over the last year. Staff recruited since the survey period have little RMA experience.

Section 37 has been applied to all applications for the past year and will continue to be applied until all vacancies in the planning team are filled.

The main reasons for non-performance with statutory timeframes are:

  • Complexity of consents – Many of the applications GDC receives are for marginal land subject to one or more natural hazards. These applications often require multiple engineering or other expert reports that must be peer reviewed. Preparing conditions from the expert reports can be time consuming and may also require peer review. Applications are also being lodged for large and complex subdivisions, for example 96 lots over 26 stages.

  • Time lost in outsourcing consent processing to consultants – GDC outsources the processing of 75–80 per cent of applications received. GDC monitors the performance of their consultants with statutory timeframes and use this to identify preferred consultants. Since this monitoring was implemented turnaround times from consultants have improved. However, outsourcing of consent processing creates a significant workload for the consent officers in managing the consultants – estimated at around 30 per cent of their time. Outsourcing is not always more efficient as consent officers still have to put in at least 20 per cent of the time they would have put in if they processed the consent themselves.

  • Time lost in referrals – Apart from the occasional exception, all applications are referred to building, plumbing and engineering for comment. This creates unnecessary delays for more minor or straightforward applications that do not need building, plumbing or engineering input.

5.5 Timaru District Council

Performance during the survey period and current performance could not be compared as data for the survey period was not supplied to the Ministry.

The average time taken to process an application between 01/07/06 and 30/06/07 was 21.5 working days.

The main reasons for non-performance with statutory timeframes are:

  • Complicated process for processing consent – TDC’s resource consents process is broken up into a series of small tasks and is slowed down by a “backwards and forwards” process between a number of different people. Each time the consent changes hands there is at least a small delay – when taken in total, significant time is lost.

  • Time lost in gaining engineering advice – The target for turnaround from engineering is 10 working days. Turnaround times often exceed this. The average time taken is 13.5 working days.

  • Use of multiple recording systems – TDC uses two electronic databases and three books, as well spreadsheets maintained by individual planners to record the progress of consent applications. Keeping all these systems up-to-date uses time that could otherwise be spent on processing consents.

5.6 Westland District Council

The main reason for non-performance with statutory timeframes was a lack of staff capacity specifically dedicated to consent processing. During the survey period resource consents were processed by the Planning and Regulatory Manager. The Planning and Regulatory Manager was also responsible for building consents, liquor licensing, environmental health, all other licensing and registration plus strategic planning. Often other matters took priority over consent processing.

Historically it took up to an average of 15.25 days before the processing of an application began. An additional staff member has recently been appointed to take over consent processing. Overall performance against statutory timeframes has remained the same since the survey period. However indications are that performance will improve over the coming year.

[ |