Consent processes must bear scrutiny
WE can only applaud the opinion expressed in the ODT on June 12 that criticism of the DCC should be factual.
And the view that resource and building consent processes are designed to keep the community safe and protect the integrity of our district plan rules.
That is why it is important for the DCC to carry out its processes efficiently, evenhandedly and costeffectively for all.
The facts are that we aim to give some consent applications redcarpet treatment. We do not aim to give such treatment to runofthemill applications who pay on exactly the same basis for the consents applied for.
The facts are that the statutory time of 20 working days to provide a consent only includes time when the DCC has not stopped the clock, which it does when it has asked a question about an application that has not been answered. This can include questions that the DCC has asked internally of itself, which is not what is contemplated by the rules around 20 working days.
The facts are that the DCC has no record of complaints around resource consents so can have no idea whether complaints are appropriately answered.
The opinion mentioned above recommends that applicants get good advice by visiting the DCC website, talking to one of the building officers or discussing the project with an architect or designer.
The facts are that the building officers who are approached prior to filing an application may well have a different view to the officer who processes an application, making the process timeconsuming and frustrating.
The facts are that it matters to all of us that these processes are efficient and quick, because the costs of being slow or of having files being looked at by multiple staff members are directly paid by all applicants. In an environment where we are working towards warm and cosy houses, protection of our heritage and earthquake strengthening, all ratepayers who are or may be needing consents for such projects are affected by such processes.
The facts are that the longterm plan, which has been recently approved, described regulatory services as not being paid for by rates, but being fully recovered by application fees and charges. These regulatory services are set to cost $112 million, up 4% on last year, and the spending of these funds is a legitimate concern to all of us: we are of course unable to go elsewhere, since councils are a monopoly provider of such services.
When a council provides these ‘‘services’’, central government imposes strict rules about how the services are to be provided, in part because we are obliged to be subject to the rules and in part because we cannot opt out of payment for such ‘‘services’’.
The rules must be fair, and they must be administered in a fair way.
We must all be in a position to consider the effects of how the regulatory processes are run by the DCC.
Many of the DCC regulatory staff are hardworking and professional. And DCC staff are frequently interested in how they can improve the services they offer. They are also often trying to help the applicants in working through the complexities of the various statutory requirements relevant to the consent processes.
But at the end of the day we have a right to expect that applications are administered fairly, efficiently, costeffectively and consistently.
And to respectfully question the processes involved.
hcalvert@xtra.co.nz