8 Processing of the Applications
Section 34A of the Act allows a consent authority to contract out certain functions, including the processing of resource consent applications.
In the case of the TPL applications, MDC contracted out the processing function to a local planning consultant familiar with the council’s consent processes.
The submitters interviewed commented favourably on the choice of consultant to undertake this function, and considered that this appointment certainly helped expedite the early processing of the applications. They also commented favourably on the s42A officer’s report that they prepared on the applications. Two typical comments made in relation to processing the applications were:
- “It was really good that MDC did contract – the consultant was a good point of contact and gave us lots of clarification. He was very good and straight up and down. But he did have a massive workload”. (Forest and Bird)
- “We had no problem with that – we knew that would be a long complicated process and to delegate made sense. The consultant made a very good effort to keep commissioners informed and to provide advice, and was also pragmatic, and responsive to requests”. (Freshwater Anglers Club)
Section 42A of the Act allows a local authority to commission an “officer’s report” on resource consent applications. They are required to be sent to the applicant, and all submitters, at least five working days prior to the hearing commencing. In this instance the consultant contracted by MDC prepared the s42A report, which generally received favourable comment such as:
- “It was very brief but did have a good summary of submitter’s concerns. The report was neutral and quite superficial – it did not deal, for instance, with the s104D “gateway tests” for non-complying activities, but suggested adverse effects could be mitigated by way of conditions”. (DoC)
- The Freshwater Anglers Club commented that “it was very helpful for us as it was set out so lay people could understand it and reflected the information available”. In a similar vein “Save the Wairau” said that the report was “good and easily understandable.”
The chair of the hearing panel passed comment that the council’s consultant was “wearing two hats” (as both the reporting officer and as an administrative assistant to the panel) but ran the hearing extremely well and helped to persuade some submitters not to present irrelevant material.
