Good Practice in Resource Consent Processing

• the pre-application phase of resource consent processing
• the application phase of resource consent processing
  • assessments of environmental effects and notification
  • monitoring processing timeframes
• customer satisfaction.

The Ministry for the Environment along with partner organisations Local Government New Zealand, the New Zealand Planning Institute, the New Zealand Institute of Surveyors, and the Resource Management Law Association established a website in 2001 to promote good practice in resource management planning in New Zealand. The website has a substantial section (The Consent Processing Resource) dedicated to promoting good practice in the processing of resource consents. The site can be accessed at http://www.qualityplanning.org.nz.

Pre-application phase of resource consent processing

Ninety percent (77) of local authorities define the environmental effects that must be addressed in consent applications for controlled and restricted discretionary activities in checklists for applicants. This is compared to 81% (70) of local authorities in 2001/2002 and 1999/2000 and 73% in 1998/1999.

Knowing exactly which effects a local authority considers need to be addressed can assist applicants in understanding and writing an Assessment of Environmental Effects (AEE). This can save time for all parties (the applicant, the local authority and submitters) and may lead to the proposed activity having better environmental outcomes.

Application process

Ninety-one percent (78) of local authorities indicated that before commissioning specialist reports they provided applicants with the opportunity to discuss or dispute the requirements to provide such further information and/or obtain it themselves, compared to 84% (81) local authorities in 2001/2002. This saves applicants paying for a specialist report when the information can be obtained from another source. The Resource Management Amendment Act 2003 clarifies the process by which applicants are notified of the requirement to commission a specialist report. Sections 357 and 358 of the Act clarify the process by which applicants can object to the requirement.

Assessments of environmental effects (AEEs) and notification

Local authorities were asked to indicate from a list (see Figure 4) the mechanisms used to ensure adequate identification and assessment of AEEs, identification of affected parties and proper notification. Sixty-nine percent (59) of authorities indicated that they follow a structured process to check that environmental effects are adequately identified and addressed in AEEs, compared to 64% (55) of local authorities in 2001/2002 and 1999/2000 and 53% in 1997/98. Adhering to a set process helps to ensure that all the necessary steps are followed and completed. This in turn provides consistency from application to application as well as from officer to officer.

Sixty-five percent (55) of local authorities indicated that guidance notes (such as The Consent Processing Resource) or checklists are available to staff on when to notify an application. This compares with 73% in 2001/02, 56% in 1999/2000 and 53% in 1997/98.

Fifty-seven percent (49) of local authorities advised they have internal guidance notes or checklists available to staff about identifying potentially affected parties compared to 57% in 2001/2002, 44% in 1999/2000 and 47% in 1997/98. Internal checklists and guidance notes ensure consistent decisions on notification and the identification of affected parties are made.

Figure 4: Good practice: assessment of environmental effects (AEEs) and notification

 

Source: RMA survey of local authorities 2003/2004.

Textural description of figure

This bar graph indicates which mechanisms are used to ensure adequate identification and assessment of AEEs, identification of affected parties and proper notification.

 

• 69% of local authorities followed a structured process to assess environmental effects.
• 65% of local authorities had formal guidance notes or checklists (eg. The Consent Processing Resource) on when to notify and application available to staff.
• 57% of local authorities had internal guidance notes or checklists which identified potentially affected parties.

Monitoring processing timeframes

Local authorities were asked if they monitor whether resource consents are processed within statutory time limits. In 2003/2004 all 86 local authorities indicated that they monitor whether consents are processed within statutory time limits. 37 advised they do so weekly, 37 monthly and 12 use other methods (for example daily, continually, annually or a combination of these). In 2001/2002, 83 local authorities (97%) monitored whether consents were processed within statutory time limits. 42 advised they do so weekly, 33 monthly, three not at all, and eight used other methods (for example, daily, continually, or a combination of these).

Local authorities were asked whether they use mechanisms to assist staff to process resource consents within time. Seventy-seven percent (66) of local authorities advised they use mechanisms to assist staff to process resource consents within time compared to 87% in 2001/2002, 72% in 1999/2000, and 70% in 1998/99.

Local authorities were asked whether they formally monitor and report consent processing performance. Seventy-nine percent (68) of local authorities formally monitor and report consent processing performance, the results of which are made available to ratepayers. This is lower than the 85% in 2001/2002 and 84% recorded in 1999/2000.

Figure 5: Monitoring timeframes

 

 

Source: RMA survey of local authorities 2003/2004.

Textural description of figure

This bar graph indicates that:

• 67% of local authorities use mechanisms to assist staff to process resource consents within time
• 79% of local authorities formally monitor and report consent processing performance.

Customer satisfaction

Local authorities were questioned regarding the practice and usefulness of satisfaction surveys for resource consent processes. Forty-four percent (38) local authorities reported that they used customer satisfaction surveys in 2003/2004 to establish what applicants think of their resource consent processes. This compares to 37% in 2001/2002, 59% in 1999/2000 and 48% in 1997/98.

Of those 38 that reported that they used customer satisfaction surveys in 2003/2004, zero reported a very dissatisfied level of satisfaction, four neutral, 26 satisfied and eight very satisfied.

Figure 6: Customer satisfaction

 

Source: RMA survey of local authorities 2003/2004.

Textural description of figure

This bar graph indicates that of the 39 local authorities that used customer satisfaction surveys in 2003/2004:

• none were very dissatisfied
• four reported a neutral level of satisfaction
• 26 were satisfied
• 8 were very satisfied.