Meeting of the Hawke's Bay Regional Council Hearings Committee
Date: Wednesday 13 July 2011
Time: 4.00p.m.
|
Venue: |
Mohaka Room Hawke's Bay Regional Council 159 Dalton Street NAPIER |
Agenda
Item Subject Page
1. Welcome/Notices/Apologies
2. Conflict of Interest Declarations
Decision Items
3. Hearing Panel and Pre Hearing Meeting Key Performance Indicators
Hearings Committee
Wednesday 13 July 2011
SUBJECT: Hearing Panel and Pre Hearing Meeting Key Performance Indicators
REASON FOR REPORT
1. To consider a set of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for Hearing Panels.
Background
2. At 23 February 2011 Council meeting, the paper “Terms of Reference – Hearings Committee” was adopted. The Council paper also signalled the Hearings Committee’s intent to develop a set of KPIs to essentially provide a measure of individual Hearings panel’s (appointed to decide notified consent applications) performance. This paper suggests a set of KPIs for consideration by the Hearings Committee.
KPIs
3. Attached is a set of seven suggested KPIs that could be used to indicate the success or otherwise of both hearings and prehearings conducted by HBRC. The KPIs are intended to be used when elected Maori Committee members or individual commissioners preside on hearings and pre hearings. KPI No 3 involves submitters and applicants providing feedback on the hearing by completing a survey questionnaire.
4. It is envisaged that this survey would be completed at the conclusion of the hearing and before any decision is released to avoid adverse survey responses due to unfavourable decisions in respect of a party.
DECISION MAKING PROCESS
5. Council is required to make a decision in accordance with Part 6 Sub-Part 1, of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act). Staff have assessed the requirements contained within this section of the Act in relation to this item and have concluded the following:
5.1. Sections 97 and 98 of the Act do not apply as these relate to decisions that significantly alter the service provision or affect a strategic asset.
5.2. .Sections 83 and 84 covering special consultative procedure do not apply.
5.3. The decision does not fall within the definition of the Council’s policy on significance.
5.4. Section 80 of the Act covering decisions that are inconsistent with an existing policy or plan does not apply.
5.5. Council can exercise its discretion under Section 79(1)(a) and 82(3) of the Act and make a decision on this issue without conferring directly with the community or others having given due consideration to the nature and significance of the issue to be considered and decided, and also the persons likely to be affected by or have an interest in the decisions to be made.
|
That the Hearings Committee recommends Council: 1. Agrees that the decisions to be made are not significant under the criteria contained in Council’s adopted policy on significance and that Council can exercise its discretion under Sections 79(1)(a) and 82(3) of the Local Government Act 2002 and make decisions on this issue without conferring directly with the community and persons likely to be affected by or to have an interest in the decision due to the nature and significance of the issue to be considered and decided. 2. That the Key Performance Indicators and Survey as set out in Attachment 1 is adopted for use by Hearings panels at consent hearings and for pre hearing meetings. 3. That the Key Performance Indicators form part of the contracted conditions of engagement for independent commissioners. |
|
Malcolm Miller Manager Consents |
Darryl Lew Group Manager Resource Management |
|
1View |
key Performance Indicators for hearing Panels |
|
|
|
Attachment 1 |
Key Performance Indicators for Hearings Panels and Pre hearing Meetings
1. That the Hearings Panel followed correct and due process.
2. That the Hearings Panel abided by statutory timeframes, Regional Policy Statement, Regional Plan and internal Council Policies when making their decisions.
3. That the Hearings Participants (both submitters and applicants) confirm they have had a fair Hearing, as determined by a post hearing survey
4. That clear reasons are given for the decision and conditions are fair, reasonable, practical and lawful
5. That substantive Hearing panel decisions are not overturned by the Environment Court on Appeal, unless new evidence is presented.
6. Hearing panel decisions are not overturned on points of law by the Environment Court.
7. Pre-hearing meetings either negate the need for a hearing or reduce the points in contention to allow a reduced scope for a hearing panel to consider.
Post Hearing Survey - Confidential
Please complete before you leave, and hand to the Hearings Administrator
Please note that this information is completely anonymous, the information is not passed to the Panel directly, and in no way will affect the Panel’s decision on an application. Feedback is sought for future improvement and feedback purposes only.
1. What was/is your role in this process?
q Applicant
q Consultant/ representative for the applicant
q Submitter or Consultant/ representative for submitter
q Observer (public gallery)
2. Were you clearly informed of the Hearing details (date, time, location) before the start of the Hearing?
q Yes
q No
If no, please explain what details were not explained, or what could have been done better: _________________________________________________________________________
3. Were you given adequate instruction/ information during the Hearing to understand the process, your role and your rights to be heard?
q Yes
q No
If no, please explain what was not explained well, or what could have been done better: ___
4. If you were an applicant, consultant or submitter, were you given adequate opportunity to be heard?
q Yes
q No
If no, please comment: _______________________________________________________
5. Do you think other parties involved were given adequate opportunity to be heard?
q Yes
q No
If no, please comment: _______________________________________________________
6. Do you think the Panel managed the Hearing well overall?
q Yes
q No
If no, please comment: _______________________________________________________
7. Do you think the Panel’s questions were clear and to the point?
q Yes
q No
If no, please comment: _______________________________________________________
8. 
Overall how do you think the
hearings panel functioned and performed? (circle)
9. Do you have any other comments or suggestions on the hearing process or the Panel’s performance?
__________________________________________________________________________
