Advance to content | List of Access Keys |

Within this page

Submissions on a plan

Abstract

A proposed plan may receive as many as thousands of submissions (including further submissions), addressing numerous issues and parts of a proposed plan. The management of submissions is a critical part of the proposed plan preparation process - good practice can facilitate the decision-making process, as well as making it easier for everyone involved.

back to top

Guidance note

Receiving submissions

Quality control

Accessible database

Reporting to decision-makers

Resolution of Disputes

Analysing submissions

Informing submitters

Hearing submitters

Other tips

back to top

Best practice examples

The following examples illustrate best practice in particular aspects of plan preparation, as described in the guidance note.

Submissions on a plan - Christchurch City Council

Christchurch City Council has developed its Access database for managing submissions on its District Plan through the entire process, including to track progress on resolving references.

Contact Anita Hansbury, City Plan, Christchurch City Council, (03) 371-1631, or Anita.Hansbury@ccc.govt.nz

Submissions on a plan - Kapiti Coast

This is based on the Access database developed at Porirua City Council. This database has been refined to meet the requirements of the full proposed plan process, and is currently being used for proposed plan changes.

Contact Andrew Guerin, Kapiti Coast District Council, (04) 904-5700, andrew.guerin@kcdc.govt.nz

back to top

RMA provisions

Section 41A-C, First Schedule, Part 1, Clauses 6, 8-10.

back to top

Case law

In terms of the scope of decisions on submissions, refer to the Making decisions on a plan guidance note

back to top

Related guidance notes

The following guidance notes are related:

back to top

Relevant publications

Scope of Submissions
Author: Christina Robertson and Sarah Rutherford [New Zealand Planning Institute]
Date: 2003/06
Journal: Planning Quarterly
This article discusses the Auckland City Council's approach to dealing with submissions on a Proposed Plan Change that seeks relief outside the scope of the Plan Change.

Keeping it fair: a guide to the conduct of hearings under the Resource Management Act 1991
Published by Ministry for the Environment - July 2001
Outlines various issues associated with hearings and discusses order of proceedings, speaking rights and techniques for asking questions and listening to answers.

Making the Process Transparent (PDF 111 KB)
Published by New Zealand Planning Institute - September 2000
Following a letter from the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment expressing concern about consultation safeguards, the Ministry for the Environment commissioned a report to investigate weaknesses in the plan making process. This paper describes the resulting report which addresses in particular problems associated with significant changes undertaken in response to submissions without appropriate further consultation.

Proposed Plan Submission Analysis
Published by Ministry for the Environment - May 2000
This report aims to assess the perceived weaknesses of the district and regional plan process when analysing submissions with significant environmental effects. It also aims to provide guidance as to how local authorities should manage submissions giving consideration to initiating a variation or plan change under the Resource Management Act.

Making a Submission on a Proposed Plan, Plan Change or Variation
Published by Ministry for the Environment - June 2006
A guide about how to make good written submissions to your local council about a proposed plan, plan change or variation.

Participation for Whom? (PDF 206 KB)
Published by New Zealand Planning Institute - September 1997
This paper presents research undertaken to assess the barriers to participation in the preparation of regional policy statements. The paper suggests that while the RMA removes legal barriers, effective participation still requires money, time and expertise.

back to top

Current challenges in practice

Databases

Local authorities around New Zealand have created a variety of databases to manage submissions. A few have 'borrowed' and adapted databases from other councils. During the second generation of plans, it will be a challenge for councils to retain and build on the knowledge developed when using the databases, rather than creating new systems.

Logistics

The logistics of organising the hearing of submitters is an ongoing challenge for local authorities - for example, timetabling submitters, determining how much time is required, and following up submitters. When the scale of hearings is enormous (for example, hearing 4500 submissions), such logistics can be a colossal task. There is no easy solution, as the approach will depend on the circumstances of each local authority. Some councils employ the dual hearings panel approach: two committees dedicated to hearing submissions on a Plan, plus some commissioners. Ensuring consistency between decisions is an ongoing challenge under such an approach.

Further submissions

New plans can have major impacts on people's lives, particular in terms of property development. A continuing challenge for practitioners is the problems that occur when submissions seek major changes to a proposed plan that can impact on many people (for example, a request for a rezoning). Notifying for further submissions is unlikely to inform everyone affected by such significant changes to the plan, and there is no requirement to notify 'affected' persons (for example, properties surrounding the land that a submitter wants re-zoned).

'Disintegration of submissions'

A particular challenge for proposed plans attracting a large number of submissions is what has been called the 'disintegration of submissions' syndrome. This occurs where submissions are analysed, heard and decided upon in parts, as they may cover different issues, different Plan provisions or different areas. The problem is compounded where there are relationships between different parts to a submission (for example, relating to noise control), or where decisions on submissions are made separately over time. Reducing the timeframes for hearing and deciding on submissions can reduce the likelihood of this phenomenon. However, this raises logistical and other issues.

back to top

Acknowledgements and editorial comments

This guidance note was prepared by Robert Schofield from Boffa Miskell Limited.

This guidance note was prepared in February 2003, and updated in March 2006 by Incite.