Section 24A RMA Investigation of the Consent Processing Performance of the Far North District Council: An Investigation of the Council’s Performance in the 2007/08 year

• Summary
• 1. Introduction
• 2. The 2007/08 Year
• 3. What has happened since 2007/08
• 4. The Current Situation
• 5. The District Plan
• 6. Views of other Parties
• 7. The Political Environment
• 8. Conclusions
• Appendices

Section 24A RMA Investigation of the Consent Processing Performance of the Far North District Council: An Investigation of the Council’s Performance in the 2007/08 year

Summary

In the 2007/08 year, the Far North District Council (FNDC) processed only 37% of resource consent applications within the statutory timelines prescribed in the Resource Management Act (RMA).  As a result of this poor performance the Minister for the Environment instructed the Ministry for the Environment (MfE) to investigate the reasons for this under the provisions of section 24A of the RMA.

MfE contracted two experienced, independent consultants to carry out this investigation.  In November and December 2009 the consultants visited the FNDC for three days, during which time they spoke with 16 staff from all levels of the organisation, the Mayor and 11 representatives of external agencies, including iwi and local planning consultants.  Telephone interviews were conducted with staff from the Northland Regional Council (NRC), and two councilors.  A detailed overview of the current consents tracking and management systems was also provided, and a substantial number of files were reviewed.

This part of the report summarises their findings and recommendations.  The full report must be read to understand the more detailed investigation and the reasons for the recommendations made.

Several factors led to the poor performance in the 2007/08 year (which followed poor performance in the 2005/06 (approximately 56% processed within statutory timeframes) and 2006/07 (approximately 44% processed within statutory timeframes) years) including:

• A large number (609) of resource consent applications were processed, and quite a number of these were for large scale developments, driven particularly by the high demand for coastal subdivision at that time.   
• Consent processing is demand driven.  FNDC did not have the staff resources to meet that demand at that time.  Additional staff were sought, but very little response was received.  Engineering advice was also stretched to deal with 285 subdivision applications during the 2007/08 year, as site visits generally have to be undertaken.  Although staff were working long hours, they were largely reacting to applicants with no opportunity for any proactive interventions.
• Some decision making processes were poor.  An example is that too many incomplete applications were accepted, rather than returned to applicants using the provisions of section 88 of the RMA.  This led to further information being requested under section 92 for almost half the applications received (295 out of 609), which is a very high percentage.
• The use of consultants for overload processing was very poorly managed, and most of the consultants used performed poorly, despite promises made that they could handle the additional workload.  In blunt terms FNDC dumped consents on consultants and they dumped back often poor draft decisions, which staff then had to review.
• There was a two month delay for hearings to be scheduled.
• The District Plan was not operative during the 2007/08 period.  It became largely operative in August 2008 and fully operative in September 2009.  During the 2007/08 period both the transitional and proposed District Plans had to be taken account of in decision making on resource consents.  Further, the now operative District Plan has many flaws.
• The resources required by FNDC to meet the new building accreditation requirements of the Building Act strained staff resources and diverted senior managers’ focus from consent processing timeframes.

It is pleasing to report that most of these failings have now been remedied.  This is attributed to two main reasons – a much reduced consent workload (a backlog of about 200 applications has been reduced to around 40 current applications), and much improved internal processes.  An example of the latter is much improved use of section 88, with decisions having to be made by the Team Leader within three days of applications being lodged.  The consent tracking system – a computer programme known as “Pathways” developed specifically for local authority consents – is used very well as a management and reporting tool.  Staff are also very supportive of one another, with a strong “team performance” ethic.  However recruitment and retention remain an issue for the Council, with a general experience gap between a handful of long serving senior staff and other, mostly inexperienced (but often very capable) staff with relatively little experience.  The employment of local residents as “student planners” on a planning scholarship programme is one commendable initiative to overcome some of these staffing issues.

Some of these improvements trace back to the 2007 local body election, where a new Mayor, prominent local businessman Wayne Brown, and his “Value for Ratepayers” team took a dominant role on the Council.  A new CEO and a very experienced General Manager of Environmental Management have been employed, and a restructure has bought the consents and planning teams together.  These staff have moved to a new building in Kerikeri, which is “closer to the action”, and management tools such as key performance indicators have been introduced for all staff.   Since March 2009, when staff put a “line in the sand”, all consent applications have been processed within statutory timelines.  All these staff changes are seen as positive, many strongly so.

External agencies were generally complementary about the consents staff of FNDC.  The staff were considered to be very approachable and responsive to calls, e-mails and the like.  Despite political tension there is a very good working relationship between the staff of the FNDC and the NRC, with close co-operation on many consents matters.  Some NRC functions have been transferred to FNDC to allow their expeditious implementation.  This arrangement generally works in a satisfactory way.  Iwi representatives spoken to considered that the staff tried hard to understand their concerns, but did express strong concerns about their people’s inability to respond within statutory timeframes as some more contentious consent applications need to be taken back to whānau or hapū groups.  This same concern is voiced by many iwi around the country.

The Council believed that there was a two year moratorium on private plan changes once the District Plan became operative.  There was also a previous reluctance to accept that the District Plan is seriously flawed, and that it needs to be changed to remedy some of these flaws.  The Council also diverted resources to prepare non-statutory policy, and rejected two private plan changes (a decision which was overturned by the Environment Court). 

The Council had a policy of applicants being able to “select” independent commissioners from a list approved by the Council; this policy direction has been changed.

There remain areas of improvement that FNDC should implement, some of which are now underway.  First, there is presently an opportunity for the Council consents team to prepare for the next upswing in consent applications.  Matters that need to be addressed in the near future include:

• Further service level agreements should be agreed with other sections of the Council, and the current agreement with the service delivery departments updated to reflect the new structure of the Council.
• Some possible flexibility in staff levels when demand increases.  For example, more engineering officers should be trained to report on consent applications.
• Consent processes should be much better documented in a manual that is regularly updated.  This allows new staff members and external consultants to readily understand the Council’s processes.
• Review existing Contracts for employing external consultants for consent overload processing, with set and enforceable performance measures. We note that such new contracts have been drafted by FNDC, but none are presently agreed.
• When we undertook the review, delegations were out of date and often had no clear accountability for what decisions are made at what levels.  New delegations have now been agreed by Council.

Secondly, the District Plan is “work in progress”, and remedying its flaws should be a priority.  Work is already underway on notifying Council initiated plan changes to improve the definitions in the Plan, and deal with amenity issues in the District (which have been identified during the preparation of the Kerikeri-Waipapa Structure Plan).  In the longer term, a review should be undertaken of what other significant changes are necessary to improve environmental outcomes. 

Thirdly, the Council has a quasi-judicial role that must be exercised with much care to avoid any hint of impropriety.  It must have transparent processes that ensure there can be no perception of undue political influence in processing consents, or in some planning decisions.  One way to help achieve this is that all resource consent applications made by individuals or companies associated with any staff, councillors or their families should be processed by independent consultants.  This will eliminate any perception of improper political interference in the processing of those consents. 

Finally, it is noted that this investigation occurred well after the poor performance took place, and as noted above, many of its causes have already been remedied.  There should be a process where councils can signal to MfE that they need help “right now”, so proactive steps can be put in place to overcome problems before councils become overwhelmed by day to day demands of processing resource consent applications.

next