Managing road safety and efficiency under the Resource Management Act 1991: The way forward

8. Assessing resource consents/guideline for applicants

Print version: Managing road safety and efficiency under the Resource Management Act 1991 (PDF, 259 KB, 63 pages)

• 8.1   Definition of objectives and issues
• 8.2   Pre-processing
• 8.3   Processing and evaluation
• 8.4   Conditions
• 8.5   Monitoring of applications

8.1   Definition of objectives and issues

The issues here are twofold:

1. Councils assess a range of issues when considering an application for resource consent.
2. Applicants must meet the information requirements prescribed by councils.

It is therefore important that councils are clear on what information they want, and why and how they plan to evaluate it.

Councils have their own internal procedures for assessing applications. Determining who should assess the application is generally made by the planner who is responsible for that application. This may require scrutiny by a range of council officers, including a traffic engineer. The planner will also undertake an initial assessment to determine if the application has sufficient information.

If the district plan determines that a resource consent is required for an activity, it is because it anticipates that the activity may have some effects that need to be controlled. An assessment of environmental effects (AEE) is required to accompany the application. If the potential effects are known in advance, the proposal can be modified and/or conditions attached to its resource consent to ensure the effects are avoided, remedied or mitigated.

8.2   Pre-processing

Early appraisal of any potential application allows potential problems to be picked up, possibly allowing potential alternatives to be canvassed early on. Alternatively, if significant adverse effects cannot be avoided, remedied or mitigated, councils will be in a position to make informed decisions later on whether to grant the consent.

The development of an internal system of this nature requires developing a checklist. The success of this type of system depends on the planner or person making the initial assessment of an application. For this reason, the system is open to human failure, unless secondary checking systems are in place.

The benefit of such a system is that it provides an opportunity for formal and informal input into projects. When a party discusses a tentative development with council officers, free and targeted advice at this stage can result in substantial cost and time savings further down the processing track.

If possible, it may be useful at this stage to consider inspecting a site to better determine the demands that would be made on it and its environment. Subsequent discussion with potential applicants at this stage is likely to ensure that they have a full understanding of the council’s perspective on the proposal, which should lead to a better quality application being lodged.

An information guideline provides factual information to applicants. It does not give advice or opinions, which can potentially be incorrectly interpreted. It can be used in tandem with other best practice guidelines or information sheets provided to applicants, eg, on how to apply for consent and consultation with affected parties, etc. This information sheet can be posted out to applicants who ring the council requesting pre-lodgement information.

This guideline or any checklist is not suitable to be used by an applicant as a substitute to an AEE. However, for controlled or restricted discretionary activities, it can give a clear indication of what the AEE must address by describing those matters over which councils have retained control or discretion. The AEE must include the informational requirements prescribed by district plans and to the level of detail required.

8.3   Processing and evaluation

It is the responsibility of the applicant to provide sufficient and appropriate information in an AEE. The checklist provides for consistency between council officers when checking applications for the accuracy of information provided. If the plan and informational requirements are clear, the officer receiving the application does not have to make any judgement on the suitability or adequacy of the information provided.

The initial check for information to allow the application to be received is a pre-acceptance check. The application’s finer detail is subsequently assessed when the application is fully evaluated. If there is any request for additional information at this latter stage, there should be only one, and not a series, of requests. This is where clear provisions in the plan will provide officers with ready reference as to what an application must address.

A detailed checklist will build on the criteria within the district plan (please refer to appendix 2 for an example). The checklist is not a statutory document and does not require public comment. It has no force in law. If the public was to be involved in the development of the checklist, this may raise queries regarding opportunities to influence the process.

While the checklist will have its place, the criteria in the district plan will provide the opportunity for public input.

Applicants should be aware that the provision of adequate information is very important to any decision by a council over whether the application may require notification or not. Adequate information is fundamental to non-notification, the scoping of potentially affected parties and consideration of ‘minor’ impacts.

Potentially affected parties may not be restricted to direct neighbours, eg, the road controlling authority of the road directly accessed by the development. Nearby road controlling authorities, if they are different parties, should also be considered in terms of the potential wider impact of the proposal on the road network. Some effects (other than those signed away by directly affected parties) may still need to be considered in making the decision on an application. For an application to be nonnotified, the effects on the environment must also be minor.

In determining minor effects, there is a strong link to an adequate assessment of environmental effects (AEE).

Reports by roading specialists may be required if a council considers a proposed activity may have a significant adverse effect on the environment. A council can commission a review of the information received in the application or commission its own specialist report.

If a specialist report is commissioned, the applicant should be advised first, especially if they are to be charged. They should also be given the chance to provide the information themselves. Agreement over the consultant to be used and guidelines for the work will ensure the findings are acceptable to both the applicant and the council.

8.4   Conditions

After assessing an application, effects that require avoidance, remedying or mitigation may be identified. These can be addressed by way of appropriate conditions.

If they can be agreed between the applicant, council and any other relevant parties, a decision may be able to be made under delegated authority, expediting the consent process.

A review condition provides an opportunity for councils to reassess the consent for particular reasons at some time in the future. In the meantime, the consent holder has certainty over the term of consent.

There are documents already available that provide strong direction on the wording and appropriateness of conditions (see appendix 3).

8.5   Monitoring of applications

Checklists provide good data for monitoring justifications for why some proposals or types of activities are consistently notified or not notified. This will signal to councils whether some activities are in the wrong category of consent in their district plan.

Any requirement to monitor the exercise of any consent or its review is generally associated with the level of adverse effect (Ministry for the Environment, 1999:65). Councils should have a clear link between the data to be gathered and its specific use. Applicants will usually have to pay for some/all monitoring costs. The results can be of some public benefit.

If the anticipated environmental outcomes have not been met, it should be identified why not, eg, with respect to applications for resource consent:

• are they being accepted in an unacceptable standard?
• are there deficiencies in their processing and evaluation?
• have consistent problems kept resurfacing with respect to how particular road safety and/or efficiency issues are being dealt with? Should these be brought to the attention of road controlling authorities?
• has the process adopted by a council to deal with road safety and efficiency issues within its plan, and through the resource consent process, been generally acceptable to the public?
• have council staff found the measures easy to implement and readily understandable, and is the delegation of decision making enhanced?

Monitoring of effects should be incorporated into plan provisions over time as the status of activities and the conditions on activities are reviewed. Therefore, council policy on cost recovery for monitoring will reflect its purpose and apportion costs to the private and public benefit that will result (Ministry for the Environment, 1999:167).

 

< previous | next >

Page created: 30 September 2008