Just two thirds of priority consents monitored

Thursday, 11 July 2024

ECan only managed to monitor 68% of its high priority consents over the last financial year, and a third of those monitored were “moderately or significantly non-compliant”.

A third of Canterbury’s most complex resource consents are not being monitored by the regional council, and nearly a third of those that are monitored are breaching their consent conditions.

There are 792 high priority consents across the region, including large water takes, irrigation schemes, regionally significant consents, “activities of concern” and those with a history of non compliance.

Only 540 (68%) of those consents were monitored in the last financial year, and Environment Canterbury (ECan) figures show 152 of those were “moderately or significantly non-compliant”. (ECan would not immediately release details of who was on its priority list, saying the request would have to be considered under official information laws.)

University of Otago research fellow Marnie Prickett says ECan’s failure to monitor high priority resource consents is “negligent”. (File photo)

The latest monitoring numbers are an improvement on previous months, with only 18% of high priority consents monitored during the first quarter of the financial year - a figure that rose to 50% by quarter three, but was still below ECan’s target of 80%.

The lack of monitoring went beyond “a high trust model” to “negligence”, and put those meeting their consent conditions at a disadvantage, University of Otago research fellow Marnie Prickett said.

“If you’re not checking … you are essentially punishing people who are doing the right thing - because there will be people who are absolutely following their consent to the letter - if you don't apply that requirement to everybody, you're undermining the good people.”

Some of the high priority consents will include large water take and irrigation consents. More than 4 billion m³ of Canterbury water is consented for irrigation. (File photo)

Meanwhile, the backlog for processing resource consents is lessening, with about a quarter (26%) of applications handled within the timeframe of 20 working days in the 2023-24 financial year, compared to just 16% meeting the deadline in the second half of last year.

However, ECan remains well short of its target of handling 95% of consents within the statutory timeframe. The delays came at a cost to the council, which must discount fees for every working day past the 20-day limit, up to a maximum of 50 days.

ECan has consistently pointed to “legacy consents” (lodged before December 2023) exacerbating delays, which had been reduced by nearly 60% in the last year, while about 70% of newly lodged applications were resolved within the time frame, consents manager Aurora Grant said.

Rural Advocacy Network chairperson Jamie McFadden acknowledged there were some “really gnarly” farming and water take consents.

Rural Advocacy Network chairperson Jamie McFadden says issues with ECan’s consenting system go beyond processing applications in a timely manner. (File photo)

But timely processing was just one aspect of the problem, McFadden said, citing training, high turnover, the complexity of the planning framework and the involvement of other agencies.

“Until they address all those other issues, they might be able to process more consents on time, but what’s the quality of those consents?”

He said drawn out and complex consenting could have a significant toll on applicants.

“What drives me is the suffering people are put under - it impacts their whole lives, their staff, their families.”

McFadden welcomed improved processing times, but was not surprised by how many priority consents were not monitored, saying ECan had “created this monster themselves” with such a “complex” planning framework.

He warned the complexity was resulting in a large number of activities that should be consented going ahead without one.

“One of the things we’re picking up around the country now is farmers are over the whole consenting thing.”

He wanted increased resources to bolster staff numbers, but said the fix went beyond money.

“It comes back to planning, training, systems, it comes back to knowledge, empathy, culture, all those things that come under how do you run a good organisation.”