Participant in local democracy

Return to The People

Their Stories

Six users' stories were selected for inclusion in this report:

• Returning New Zealander
• First-time importers
• Person who used mental health services
• Parent of youth at risk
• Participant in local democracy
• Genealogist

Skip to Common Themes

Participant in local democracy

Each story is represented pictorially, underscoring salient features and bringing into relief both the positive and negative experiences of using government services. The accompanying narrative, incorporating the user’s own words, highlights key points and possible implications.

Gareth, a New Zealander in his early fifties, lives with his wife in their own home. He co-ordinated a local group opposed to a medium-density housing development project in their local area.

The proposed development was to be located one property away from his, separated by part of a small vineyard. However, he was not consulted as part of the resource consent process because his property was not directly adjacent, even though he would have had a direct line of sight to the development. He considered the development to be out of character for the local area and that it did not meet council guidelines.

When Gareth distributed a flyer, concerned neighbours responded by forming a group. He noticed that most people felt daunted by the idea of making a submission, even though he had learnt from experience that the process is usually not as complicated as it might first appear.

Key points

• information about process:
  Gareth said that many people might be overwhelmed by the complexity of preparing and lodging resource consent submissions, and usually had little understanding of the resource consent process. He said that it would have been helpful if the council had provided a simple handbook on how to prepare submissions.
• council assistance:
  When the local group coordinated their efforts they were able to use some council facilities, such as the community hall. But the council provided little further assistance.
• notification of development proposals:
  Gareth felt that the notification process regarding the proposed development was inadequate. He only learnt of the proposal indirectly; many others who were potentially affected only learnt about it when he distributed fliers around the neighbourhood.
• co-ordinated government services:
  Moana's experience with various government agencies that delivered health services, including emergency services, suggests that they co-ordinated well.
• community participation may improve outcome:
  Gareth said that, rather than rejecting the project, most of the people who participated suggested positive mitigation measures that could be incorporated into the project design. He felt that if a community feels empowered and gets involved, this is likely to result in a better community.

Possible implications

• making submissions:
  Gareth commented that his group would have benefited from better engagement in the resource consent and planning process. This could have been facilitated by the council providing a guide to preparing submissions, making it available online, and allowing for submissions to be lodged online. Online tools have the potential to contribute to other aspects of community engagement in the planning process, such as awareness raising, community interaction, or policy deliberation.
• being informed about progress:
  Most people in the group were inexperienced and lacked understanding of what to expect from the resource consent process and what the key steps of the process were. As the application progressed, many were frustrated by long periods of uncertainty while they awaited an outcome. This suggests that their frustration would have been ameliorated if they had been advised in advance about how the process worked and when they could provide input.