Consent decision making

Presentation

Need for consultants/costs expert evidence
Time/delays - costs not awarded against vexatious applicants
Trade and competitive submissions still happening
Identify affected parties
- very difficult
- objections need to qualify standing
Poor consistency for activity between councils/quality of decision making (where appropriate)
Limited notification should be used more often
Limit number of section 92 requests for further information
Concern with councils ability double timeframes - wouldn't wash in business
Councils could provide guidelines for levels of information accompanying an Assessment of Environmental Effects (AEE)
Council to provide more - certain information regarding who to consult with
No recourse for costs against environmental groups
Consideration of positive effects need to be balanced
Lack of plans holding back development - need timeframes
Recommend - review of council performance annually
Iwi issue - one of standing
Education process for those unfamiliar with RMA, eg. Asian groups
Scientific clash with cultural issues -common sense approach needed, rather than cultural dominating

Agree to move away from de novo
Take account of decision report by council - scope where there is agreement and disagreement
Set timeframes - council do not meet timeframes, but there is no penalty
Consultation
- clearer guidance from councils on affected parties
- a strong definition on what is required for consultation
Hearings
- Encourage more pre-hearing meetings - scope issues
- better interaction between participants

More notification of applications
Not specific in ads about what application is about
Better enforcement of plans/consents
Need to consider effects on people including neighbours; owners of infill housing (little space around houses)
Developers need to participate in pre-hearings - compulsory for resource consents
Councillors should not charge when have invested interest
Council hearings - good process, related process, with independent commissioner, more inclusive
Hard process for the ordinary person, plans are not simple documents and different stages
For complex issues need expertise to participate
RMA plans less certain than Town and Country Planning Act plans - activities easier to understand
Support Ministry for the Environment legal assistance
Twenty days to be short for submissions by groups - 30 days better

Tools available now but not being used - RMA okay but practice and governance /resourcing
Funding, resources of councils for best practice/people in community to participate more efficiently
Funding/resourcing of Quality Planning/Review of councils like Education Review Office - more than monitoring statistics
Process - (often only threat judicial review)
- review of who affected: notification - ombudsman
- audit of AEEs - Environment Court - Judge alone
- section 92 requests - commissioners alone
- outcome - better quality
Process - more use of call-ins for multi districts/regions (delete designations). Again need resourcing for council

Need to streamline consent processing - speed up
Need appropriate national standards [NPS/NES] if standards meet, remove need for a hearing
Where multiple territorial authorities considering applications
- need better mechanisms
- concerns over one authority holding-up processing across territories
- need a panel of commissioners
- hear them together as one hearing
More decision-making by independent commissioners
Councils/applicants should have ability to require commissioners to hold hearings
Councils can decide on plan development but issues over decision making in consents - potential conflicts
Support accreditation of decision-makers
Want ability to go straight to Environment Court
Vexatious objectors includes competitors
Problems of further information for assessment of environmental effects
Consultation with iwi
Maori register needed by Councils identifying level of interest by territory - iwi/hapu/other
develop national scale of fees for consultation
Remove de novo processes from Environment Court

National standard/model Rules for "national" activities, eg. network utilities
Commissioners at applicants request
Commissioners compulsory for notified applications that go to hearing
'Standing' of participants too open-ended. Decision makers too risk adverse
Reinstate security of costs
Compulsory training for commissioners
Term of consent ought to be maximum unless environmental reasons for lesser term
Merit in 'Ombudsman' idea provided high level not day-to-day complaints report not change decision
Next round of plans (RMA) not operative until complete process. Transition to National Environmental Standards
Adversarial for first submission round - then inquisitorial at Environment Court

Last updated: 6 May 2008