Planning and Consent Difficulties

Report to the Whanganui District Council

Review of Concerns Regarding Planning and Resource Consent Services

Introduction

On 15 July 2026 the Whanganui District Residents and Ratepayers Association (WRRA) invited members of the public to provide feedback on their experiences with the Whanganui District Council's Planning and Resource Consent services.

The purpose of the request was not to criticise Council staff, but to determine whether concerns previously raised with the WRRA represented isolated incidents or indicated a wider pattern requiring further attention.

The issues referred to in this report are all current in 2026. Although the origin for some of them are as old as 40 years.

The invitation specifically sought information relating to:

• delays in processing applications;

• communication with Council staff;

• site inspections;

• resource consent matters; and

• the impact of neighbouring developments.

Since the request was published, the WRRA has received ten responses.

While ten complaints do not, by themselves, establish a systemic problem, the consistency of the issues raised warrants further examination.

Confidentiality

Perhaps the most significant finding was not the complaints themselves, but the fact that People who provided detailed information requested confidentiality.

The reason consistently given was concern that identifying themselves could adversely affect future dealings with the Council.

Whether or not that concern is justified is almost secondary. The fact that members of the public feel unable to openly raise legitimate concerns should itself concern the Council.

A healthy relationship between a local authority and its community depends upon confidence, openness and trust.

Common Themes

Although every case differed in its detail, several common themes emerged.

1. Legislative Knowledge

Several respondents questioned whether recent legislative changes relating to planning and resource consent matters were being consistently understood and applied.

Whether these concerns are justified can only be determined by Council management through an internal review.

2. Communication

Many respondents described communication with the Planning Department as difficult.

Common concerns included:

• difficulty obtaining clear explanations;

• delays in receiving responses;

• uncertainty regarding Council requirements; and

• inconsistent advice from different officers.

Ratepayers should be able to clearly understand what is required of them and why.

3. Conduct During Site Visits

Several respondents described site inspections as unnecessarily confrontational.

Some reported officers entering property without first speaking with the owner, while others questioned photographs being taken without explanation.

Council officers may have statutory powers of entry in certain circumstances. Nevertheless, exercising those powers professionally, respectfully and courteously is equally important.

Some respondents also expressed concern that information relating to their properties or applications had been discussed with third parties without their knowledge or consent. If correct, such concerns warrant careful examination by Council

Good public administration depends not only upon legal authority but also upon maintaining public confidence.

4. Historical Council Decisions

A number of complaints involved issues originating many years ago.

Although the legal position may differ between individual cases, ratepayers reasonably expect Council to assist in resolving problems where historic Council decisions may have contributed to the situation

Where earlier Council decisions have contributed to current problems, simply advising ratepayers that the matter is now a civil dispute is unlikely to restore public confidence.

Although legal responsibility may ultimately differ between cases, Council should wherever possible assist ratepayers to resolve issues arising from its own historical decisions.

5. Consistency

A recurring perception was that similar situations were being treated differently.

Whether or not this perception is accurate, consistency in decision-making is fundamental to maintaining confidence in the planning system.

6. Report the outcome of the review to the Council's elected members and advise the WRRA of the general findings and any service improvements that will be implemented.

Overall Observation

The WRRA is not suggesting that every complaint is necessarily correct, nor that these concerns reflect the conduct of every Planning Department officer. However, the consistency of issues raised by unrelated members of the public indicates that these matters deserve careful internal examination. A willingness to review these concerns openly would strengthen public confidence in the Council's regulatory functions.

Recommendations

The WRRA respectfully requests that the Council:

1. Conduct an internal review of the matters identified in this report.

2. Advise the WRRA that the review has commenced.

3. Consider whether staff training, communication practices and customer service standards require improvement.

4. Review whether recent legislative changes are being consistently interpreted and applied.

5. Advise the WRRA, once the review is complete, of any improvements that will be implemented.

Warrick Funnell (Acting chairman)