This report may be cited as


Appendix 3: Council survey results



Download 244.21 Kb.
Page11/12
Date20.10.2016
Size244.21 Kb.
#6560
1   ...   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12

Appendix 3: Council survey results


Q1a. Change in workload, by council type




City

District

Total

Increased

2

7

9

Decreased

2

2

4

Stayed same

2

6

8

Lumpy

0

3

3

Total

6

18

24

Note: Auckland not included: council has only existed since 2010

Q1b. Change in workload, by stringency of previous city/district plan






Less

As stringent or more so

Total

Increased

4

4

8

Decreased

3

2

5

Stayed same

5

3

8

Lumpy

2

1

3

Total

14

10

24

Note: Auckland not included: council has only existed since 2010. Stringency is based on April 2006 assessment of plans undertaken for the Ministry by Incite, Christchurch.

Q2a: Without the NES what would the workload have been (by council type)?






City

District

Total

Increased

1

0

1

Decreased

0

3

3

Stayed same

5

14

19

Don’t know

0

1

1

Total

6

18

24

Note: Auckland not included: council has only existed since 2010.

Q2b: Without the NES what would the workload have been (by stringency of city/district plan)?






Less

As stringent or more so

Total

Increased

0

1

1

Decreased

3

0

3

Stayed same

10

9

19

Don’t know

1

0

1

Total

14

9

24

Auckland not included: council has only existed since 2010.

Q3. Does your council collect number of telco resource consents?






City

District

Total

Yes

3

13

16

No

3

5

8

Don’t know

1

0

1

Total

7

18

25

Q4: Estimated* number of resource consent applications received in past 12 months




City

District

Total

None

1

1

2

1–10

3

15

18

11–100

3

1

4

More than 100

0

0

0

Don’t know

0

1

1

Total

7

18

25

* Note response to Q3: some large city councils do not collect data

Q5: How does your council deal with RF reports?






City

District

Total

Filed in electronic system

4

6

10

Filed in paper system

0

5

5

Combination of the above

3

6

9

Not retained

0

0

0

Don’t know

0

1

1

Total

7

18

25

Q6: In the past 12 months how many installations have received complaints?




City

District

Total

0

0

6

6

1–10

6

11

17

11–100

0

0

0

>100

0

0

0

Don’t know

1

1

2

Total

7

18

25

Reason for complaint: visual impact, health, property values, traffic hazard

Who made the complaint: adjacent land owners

How was the complaint addressed: information provision. Negotiation with operators. Public meetings

Q7: Do you think that an appropriate balance has been achieved?






City

District

Total

Yes

4

10

14

No

1

2

3

Don’t know

2

6

8

Total

7

18

25

Why was a balance not achieved: results in appropriate siting. Not enough liaison with councils and corridor managers leads to street clutter. Council’s say on matters is very restricted

Q8: Rating of Users’ Guide






City

District

Total

Very useful

1

2

3

Useful

4

9

13

Not useful

0

1

1

Not at all useful

0

0

0

Don’t know, never used it

2

6

8

Total

7

18

25

Possible additions to the Users’ Guide?: Co-location; make standards simpler, more user friendly

Q9: Would your council like to see any changes made to NES?






City

District

Total

Yes

2

4

6

No

3

9

12

Don’t know

2

5

7

Total

7

18

25

What are those changes: co-location, notification of residents within 100 m radius before council approached; fix interpretation of ‘site’; all new installations should be approved by council; the NES should have replaced all of the rules in the city plan.


Download 244.21 Kb.

Share with your friends:
1   ...   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12




The database is protected by copyright ©ininet.org 2024
send message

    Main page