Requesting further information
Abstract
Upon formal receipt of resource consent applications, councils are required to assess them for completeness in terms of: describing the proposed activity, any effects the activity will have, and how any adverse effects may be avoided, remedied or mitigated.
Section 92 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) allows councils to request further information or commission a report, at any reasonable time before the hearing of an application. Such additional information may be required to better understand any potentially significant adverse effects. The applicant has the right to refuse to provide further information or for a report to be commissioned.
Sections 92A and 92B address responses to requests for further information and requests to commission reports. Sections 88B and 88C set out how these requests impact on the processing timeframes for resource consents.
Guidance note
- Section 92 – further information
- When should further information be asked for?
- How should further information be asked for?
- Responses to a request for further information
- Commissioning reports from other people
- What to do when the applicant refuses to provide information, does not meet timeframes, or refuses for a report to be commissioned?
- How many times can further information be asked for?
- Check the further information received
- What happens to the processing timeframes if a s92 request is made?
Section 92 - further information
Section 92 of the RMA enables a council to request further information from the applicant, and/or request an applicant to agree to the commissioning of a report, if the activity may have a significant adverse environmental effect. While the RMA does not specify what things further information may be requested for, a request should generally relate to enabling a better understanding of:
- the nature of the proposed activity
- the effects of the proposed activity on the environment
- the ways any adverse effects may be avoided, remedied or mitigated.
Occasionally to enable a better understanding of the application, a council may also need to request further information about matters such as legal access, the nature of easements, and confirmation of ownership.
Any further information sought should not:
- be a request for fees (this is a s36 matter)
- be beyond what is actually applied for in the application
- cover information that the council officers should already be aware of
- be used to rectify deficiencies in the regional/district plan
- be trivial and unreasonable
- be used to obtain information on minor matters that are not essential to determining the application, particularly technical matters that are typically addressed through conditions of consent. However, information on minor matters might be sought as part of a wider request for substantive information
- be used as a means to unnecessarily ‘stop the clock’ for processing the application
- be a request for a written approval (this is a request under s94). However, it is practical to combine a request for written approval with a s92 further information request in a single letter to the applicant if possible.
This process is detailed in the section 92 flowchart.
When should further information be asked for?
The RMA enables a council to request further information at any reasonable time before the hearing of an application, or before the decision is made on the application (if there is no hearing). However, the earlier in the process the request is made, the better. It is good practice to make a request for further information within 5 working days of receiving the application. This is to avoid unreasonable delays and takes into account the statutory timeframes for notification purposes. That is, notification must occur within 10 working days of receipt of the application (s95), excluding any days the clock has been stopped for further information request(s). This timeframe should also allow time for a site visit before deciding to request further information.
It is good practice to minimise the number of times further information is requested. Ideally, council officers will have discussed or circulated the application internally so that all information requests (eg, roading, stormwater, engineering, planning, cultural impact) can be dealt with in one request. In the first instance, a council officer should require sufficient information to allow an application to be notified (eg, enough information that allows a good understanding of what is proposed and the likely environmental effects that would arise from the proposal). If further detailed information is required later, then this can be asked for before a hearing; it needs to be made available to submitters at least 10 working days before the hearing commences. Commissioners can also request further information during the course of a hearing to enable a better understanding of the application, adjourning the hearing if necessary.
How should further information be asked for?
Further information requests are required to be made in writing and must state the reasons for making the request. However, council officers should contact the applicant first to ensure they are aware of the request, the information required and the reason.
Requests for further information should:
- advise the applicant of the 15-working-day timeframe within which they need to do one of the following:
- provide the information
- confirm in writing that they agree to provide the information
- refuse to provide the information
- inform the applicant of the consequences of not responding within 15 working days or a timeframe prescribed by council: ie, the application will continue to be processed on the basis of the application as it stands and may be declined on the basis of insufficient information
- directly relate to the potential for adverse environmental effects arising from the proposal
- lead to a better understanding of the application
- consider the implications of affected persons and s104(3)(b)
- where necessary, request clarification of aspects of the proposal to ensure that conditions are reasonable
- be worded clearly and unambiguously
- provide a consent reference number, a contact name and phone number for follow-up discussions
- let the applicant know they can object to any request for further information (s357A(1)(b)) and to any request for the commissioning of a report (s357A(1)(c))
- advise that the applicant can appeal a decision to decline an application made on the basis of insufficient information (s358).
Refer to Example: Section 92 letter (MS Word 27KB).
Use a standardised staff check list to assess the application in terms of its compliance with the relevant plan(s). This will highlight any gaps in the information provided. See Example: Checklist for processing officer (MS Word 89KB).
Responses to a request for further information
Applicants have three options when responding. They can:
- provide the information
- agree to provide the information
- refuse to provide the information.
Applicants must tell the council what they intend to do in writing within the 15-working-day timeframe. If an applicant agrees to provide the information, the council must set a reasonable date by which the information needs to be received and advise the applicant in writing of this date.
Questions for a council to consider when setting a reasonable date include:
- Would the type of information requested be beyond the expertise of the applicant, so that expert input may need to be obtained?
- Would the type of information require some level of testing that may take some time?
- Is there any particular need for urgency that would necessitate setting a tight timeframe? For example, the application may be retrospective for unauthorised works which, unless addressed, could have adverse environmental effects.
When setting the new timeframe, keep in mind the duty under s21 to avoid unreasonable delay. Remember particularly with notified applications, that other persons are involved with the application and long delays in its processing can result in uncertainty.
It is good practice to discuss the new timeframe for providing the information with the applicant, before issuing the extended timeframe in writing.
Section 88C states an application comes off hold when:
- the applicant refuses to provide the requested information
- the applicant provides the requested information
- the 15-working-day time period expires,
whichever is the earlier (unless a new timeframe to supply the information has been set).
The council officer should contact the applicant just before the expiry of the timeframe with a reminder of the need to respond.
What this means is, the council must continue to process the application if the applicant:
- doesn’t respond to the information request within 15 working days, or refuses to provide further information
- agreed to provide information but it is not received within the timeframe set by council.
The council may refuse the application on the basis of insufficient information if it is not provided or not received within the set timeframe.
If the further information is provided, this must be made available for public inspection no later than 10 working days before the hearing of an application.
If the requested information is provided slightly after the deadline, it would be good practice to continue to process the application on the basis of the new information. However, s37 could be used to ensure timeframes are met.
Commissioning reports from other people
Section 92(2) allows councils to commission reports on matters relating to an application if:
- the council considers the activity may have a significant adverse environmental effect;
- the applicant is notified before the report is commissioned
- the applicant agrees to the commissioning of the report (s92B(1)).
As with general further information requests, the applicant must be notified in writing of the request and the reasons for it. The estimated cost of commissioning a report should also be advised. See: Example: Letter to applicant to request the commissioning of a report (MS Word 28 KB).
Note that if the applicant does not agree to the commissioning of a report under s92(2), and the council considers that a report is required to adequately assess and evaluate an application, councils may still rely on s42A (Reports to local authorities). However, using s42A would not ‘stop the clock’ and the council may need to consider extending timeframes under s37 in this circumstance.
The commissioning of reports should be confined to matters that are critical to making an informed decision on a proposal – particularly on aspects that may have significant adverse consequences, eg, exacerbating the risks from natural hazards.
Generally, reports are commissioned for larger-scale or complex projects where specific expertise is required. For example, a proposed new mining activity may have significant adverse effects on ground stability on surrounding properties; the council may seek a report by a qualified geologist evaluating the applicant’s information provided.
Where a proposal may have a significant effect on Māori cultural values, such as those covered in RMA Part 2 matters, a cultural impact assessment (CIA) may be required. See Frequently asked questions about Cultural Impact Assessments (CIAs).
Upon receipt of notification from the council of the intention to commission a report, the applicant has 15 working days to advise the council whether or not the commissioning of a report is agreed to. The applicant can object under s357.
Example: Letter for commissioning report from an expert (MS Word 27KB) .
If the request for a report is agreed to and commissioned, the report must be available for public inspection no later than 10 working days before the hearing. It is advisable to ensure all the parties interested in the application (for example any submitters or people to be served notice) are aware that a report has been commissioned and is available for public inspection.
What to do when the applicant refuses to provide information, does not meet timeframes, or refuses for a report to be commissioned?
A council may decline an application, in accordance with s92A(3) if the applicant:
- fails to respond within the time specified
- agrees to provide, but then does not supply the information within the time limit
- refuses to provide the information, and the council has insufficient information to determine the application.
This also applies where a council wants to commission a report (s92B(2)).
The applicant needs to be made aware of the consequences of not providing the requested information or agreeing to a report being commissioned. The following means could be used to advise an applicant:
- application packs
- lodgement meetings
- s92 letters
- follow-up phone calls and/or a letter just before the deadline expiry, or after the applicant advises of refusing the request.
The applicant should be made aware that the application will continue to be processed on the basis of the information that has been provided; and that, if the application is so deficient that the effects can not be adequately determined, it is likely to be declined.
Declining an application on the basis of insufficient information should be undertaken with caution and only where there are very obvious deficiencies in information. Before taking this step, consider who may be affected by the application and whether notification is appropriate. These findings should be clearly documented.
When deciding how to progress an application that is deficient of information, the council needs to consider how essential the missing information really is.
Key aspects to consider include whether:
- the effects of the activity will be minor
- there are affected parties who should be involved
- the council is confident it does not need any additional information which notification may provide.
If there is insufficient information in an application for the council to make a notification decision, then the default presumption in the RMA is for notification to occur.
If the application is to be notified, then the applicant should be advised that this is so, and that without the requested information or expert report that the application may subsequently be declined on the basis of having insufficient information; further, that any hearings commissioners might also request that further information be provided during the hearing, with hearing adjournment and consequential delays the likely result.
If the application is declined due to a lack of information and the decision is appealed, the Environment Court must decide whether or not the council had sufficient information to determine the application. If the Court decides there was sufficient information, then the Court must hear and decide the application.
If the application should have been notified and was not, then the Court may have to determine the application without any opportunity for submissions or other involvement by affected persons. See PN Industrial and Residential Developments Ltd v Palmerston North City Council [2007] W73/2007
Applicant objection and appeal rights to a further information request and/or the commissioning of a report
An applicant may lodge an objection to formally challenge the validity of a further information request or a request to commission a report, in accordance with S357A(1)(b) and (c), following procedures set out in 357C. The applicant also has a right of appeal on the council’s decision on that narrow issue (s358).
Hearing the resource consent application where further information has not been provided
Whether a hearing is required to make a decision under s92A(3) will depend on the council’s delegations. If a hearing is needed, the applicant should be made aware of the following: despite exercising a legal right under the RMA not to provide information, it is possible that during the course of the hearing:
- that further information may again be requested, risking adjournment and consequent delays
- the application may be declined on the basis of insufficient information
Either alternative, or a combination of both, may apply.
Appeal rights on a council decision to decline an application under s92A(3)
If the council declines an application under s92A(3), the applicant may appeal this decision; in that case the full application will go before the Court (see PN Industrial and Residential Developments Ltd v Palmerston North City Council [2007] W73/2007). Provided the application was notified, any submitter may become a party to the court proceedings under s274.
In hearing the appeal, the Court will firstly decide if the council did in fact have sufficient information to enable it to determine the application. Should this be the case, the Court will then hear and decide the appeal in accordance with s92A(6).
If the Court decides that the council did not have sufficient information to enable it to determine the application, it must decline the appeal (s92(A)(5)).
How many times can further information be asked for?
The RMA does not specify a limit on the number of times a council can ask for further information. However, it is good practice to keep requests to a minimum and to make only one request for further information per application (except repeated requests for the same information, or further requests relating to the clarity or content of any further information supplied). Sometimes a submission raises an issue that was not previously apparent; this may also may trigger a request for further information.
Further information requests should not be used as a method to stall or buy time in the resource consent process.
Check the further information received
An application comes off hold on the date the applicant provides the further information. Therefore it is important that the further information is checked for adequacy upon receipt.
The information received should be checked against the official s92 request, to ensure all the matters required to be covered have been adequately addressed. If the applicant has not satisfactorily covered all matters in the request, a further request for information may be required. As a minimum, adequate information must be provided to allow an application to proceed to notification (see Upper Clutha Environmental Society Inc v Queenstown-Lakes District Council and Geotherm Group Ltd v Waikato Regional Council).
What happens to the processing timeframes if a section 92 request is made?
In making a s92 request, the RMA allows a council to postpone:
- notification of the application
- determination of the application (if there is no hearing)
- the hearing.
If the council has requested an applicant to supply further information, the application is placed on hold from the date the request was made. The applicant then has 15 working days to reply. The application comes off hold when:
- the information is received, if the applicant responds within the 15-working-day timeframe
- 15 working days from the date of the further information request if the applicant does not respond
- on the prescribed date if the applicant agrees to supply further information but it is not received by the date prescribed by the council.
At the time the application comes off hold, the processing ‘clock’ must be re-activated: it must not be reset to zero.
If the council has notified an applicant of its intention to commission a report and the applicant agrees to this, the application is placed on hold from the date the applicant is notified and when the report is received. However if the applicant does not agree to the commissioning of a report, then the application comes off hold either (whichever is the earlier):
- 15 working days from when the applicant was informed
- when the council receives notice that the applicant refuses the commissioning of a report.
Forms and checklists
Example: Checklist for processing officer (MS Word 89KB)
Example: Section 92 letter (MS Word 27KB)
Example: Letter to applicant to request the commissioning of a report (MS Word 28 KB)
Example: Letter for commissioning report from an expert (MS Word 27KB)
Case law
The following cases contain discussion on s92 matters:
Central Plains Water Trust v Ngāi Tahu Properties Limited [2008] NZCA 71 – this case is about two competing resource consent applications for taking water from the Waimakariri River. The questions of law are whether priority is given to that application which was ready first for notification, and whether a decision under s91 to defer notification pending application for additional consents meant that the application was not ready for notification until the additional consent applications were made. Both of these questions of law were answered in the affirmative.
PN Industrial and Residential Developments Ltd v Palmerston North City Council W073/07 – this case related to an appeal against a council decision to decline an application under s92A(3) due to insufficient information. The decision to decline was made on a non-notified basis without an assessment of whether a notification determination should have occurred. The Court considered there was a clear gap in the RMA which arose when the s92 and 92A processes were undertaken before notification: it created a situation where the Court was in a position of determining the consent, without the application having gone through the normal consent process. The Court was not prepared to proceed with the appeal without giving interested persons the opportunity to participate. Consequently it ordered that the council serve copies of the appeal on ‘certain identified persons’ to enable them to join the proceedings if they wished.
Wakatu Inc v Tasman DC CIV-2007-442-205 (HC) – this case relates to competing applications for resource consent to take water and when sufficient information was available to make a decision on notification. The Court decided that the relevant test is “whether submitters had sufficient information to determine the effects on them” not “whether the application contained enough information to enable the assessment of effects on the environment”.
Eastcote Developments (2005) Limited v Tauranga City Council A013/06 - this case relates to an appeal under s358(1) against the council’s decision to dismiss an objection to a request for further information in relation to a restricted discretionary subdivision. The council sought further information relating to the potential effects on surrounding properties. The council contended that it was entitled to do so under s92, however the appellant argued that the request was outside council’s jurisdiction (restricted discretionary activity status applied). The Court found that the council had acted correctly and within its discretion; the appeal was dismissed.
Geotherm Group Ltd v Waikato Regional Council AP26/03 – in this case the appellant sought a ruling that priority should be accorded to whichever application was ready first for a hearing. The Court noted that until the time of notification the readiness of an application is in the hands of an applicant; however, after notification the need for further information may arise from a number of causes outside the control of the applicant. For this and other reasons the Court held that the application first ready for notification should have priority.
Upper Clutha Environmental Society Inc v Queenstown Lakes District Council C034/02 – the Court held that s93 does not require that all relevant information to be supplied to the consent authority before notification, only “adequate” information. Section 92 enables the consent authority to require further information at any reasonable time before a hearing.
Relevant publication
Getting in On the Act
Published by Ministry for the Environment - June 2006
A short, simple guide on how the Resource Management Act works and how it might affect users.
Auditing Assessments of Environmental Effects: A Good Practice Guide
Published by Ministry for the Environment - March 1999
This guide outlines good practice for regional and district councils in auditing assessments of environmental effects. The Resource Management Act requires each resource consent application to be accompanied by an assessment of environmental effects. Councils need this information to make informed decisions on granting resource consent and setting conditions to control potential effects.
Your Guide to the Resource Management Act: An essential reference for people affected by or interested in the RMA
Published by Ministry for the Environment - August 2006
This guide for the public presents a simple explanation of the RMA legislation, the processes it has established, and how people can use it to pursue their interests.
Your Guide to the Resource Management Act: An essential reference for people affected by or interested in the RMA
Published by Ministry for the Environment - August 2006
This guide for the public presents a simple explanation of the RMA legislation, the processes it has established, and how people can use it to pursue their interests.
Relevant websites
The following are a selection of websites that may be of assistance and are relevant to this Guidance Note:
The Environmental Defence Society website has information for applicants on all parts of the resource consent process. This includes a flow diagram of the entire process. It also informs on what happens when an application is received by a consent authority and further information is required. See the Environmental Defence Society's Processing of Resource Consent Applications web pages.
Environment Canterbury's website contains information for the applicant on applying for resource consent, the information that needs to be provided, and receipting applications. Go to Environment Canterbury's Applying for a Resource Consent.
Current challenges in practice
Getting information on Māori cultural values
Often it is difficult to know if a proposed activity will have an effect on Māori cultural values. If in doubt, contact your local tāngata whenua. Refer to the Consultation with tāngata whenua and Consultation guidance notes.
If no consultation with tāngata whenua has been reported in the Assessment of Environmental Effects (AEE) and the activity is in an area, or may affect a resource of known importance to tāngata whenua, it is good practice to commission a cultural impact assessment. A CIA can identify likely effects of a proposal on Māori cultural values and interests. Early identification of potential effects can enable modification of the proposal to avoid potential effects and assist in identifying how the effects can be remedied or mitigated.
See Frequently asked questions about Cultural Impact Assessments (CIAs) for more information.
Deciding if specialist auditing is required
It may be difficult to determine if an application warrants specific auditing by someone with a specialised area of expertise.
The RMA requires applicants to be advised in writing of the intention to commission a report and the reasons for it; their agreement to the report being commissioned is also required. If applicants do not agree to the report they run the risk that the consent may be notified and/or declined on the grounds of insufficient information. However the applicants’ appeal rights should ensure that the decision to decline is made cautiously by a council and on solid grounds.
See What to do when the applicant refuses to provide information, does not meet timeframes, or refuses for a report to be commissioned for more information.
It may be helpful to provide an estimate of the likely costs of an expert report. Some cases may warrant the costs to be shared between the applicant and the council, if the information would also benefit the council for its own purposes. An example could be a traffic study of a particular intersection which would also benefit the council.
Auditing should only be used when the matter is critical to determining the application and where the consequences of not obtaining accurate information may be significant (for example, traffic safety, cultural impacts). Use auditing only when some independent form of verification is needed.
Keeping to timeframes
During heavy workload periods, it can be difficult to keep to the timeframes set down in the RMA. Consequently, further information may be requested some way through the process whereas ideally they should be done nearer to the time the application is lodged. Although not encouraged unless there are unusual circumstances or the application is particularly complicated, there is capacity in s37 and s37A to extend the timeframes by no more than twice the maximum allowed. The provisions of s92 should also ensure that further information is received in a more timely manner.
The way in which further information is requested
In times of heavy workload, the need to request further information in writing may be overlooked with people relying on phoning the applicant with a request. However, s92 specifically requires further information requests to be made in writing. This is to avoid misunderstandings occurring. Providing a written request allows for a record of what was actually required, and on what date, for tracking and recording key timeframes. A written request also ensures that the applicant is formally advised of the application being put on hold and of objection and appeal rights under the RMA. The further information request can be faxed or e-mailed to avoid delays to the applicant.
Timing of site visit
It is sensible to do a site visit before a s92 request, as it may be difficult to understand the nature of an application, its effects, and who may be adversely affected. A site visit carried out after a s92 request could avoid the need for a further s92 request.
For example, a site visit may highlight some issues about the proposal that may have been unidentified in the application. It is the processing officer’s judgement call when is the best time to undertake a site visit; this may vary between different applications. Always contact the applicant before a site visit to ensure access and to find out about potential on-site hazards.
This guidance note was updated in June 2009.
