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.
Share with your friends: |