30 August 2024
File refs:
IRC-6800, IRC-6857-6859
IRC-6884, IRC-6886–6887
Wellington Ratepayer
[FYI request #27779 email]
Tēnā koe
Thank you for your emails of 22 July 2024, 4 August 2024 and 8 August 2024, to Te
Kaunihera o Pōneke / Wellington City Council (the Council) about various aspects of
planning rules and Council’s electronic searching functions.
Each of your seven information requests received on those dates is attached in full in the
Appendix of this letter, for your reference.
IRC-6800, IRC-6857, IRC-6858, IRC-6859, IRC-6884, IRC-6886
These requests do not conform to the requirements of an information request under the
Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (LGOIMA). The LGOIMA
provides for release of official material that already exists in Council, and not that we
generate new material (such as a confirmation or refutation) to provide to you. In addition,
we consider that your requests lack due particularity, which is a requirement specified in
section 10(2) of the LGOIMA. A copy of the LGOIMA is available on the following link:
Local Government Of icial Information and Meetings Act 1987 No 174 (as at 23 December
2023), Public Act Contents – New Zealand Legislation and the Office of the Ombudsman’s
guide to requester can be found at the following link:
Making official information requests - A
guide for requesters.pdf (ombudsman.parliament.nz).
The current District Plan came into effect in the year 2000, and has recently been
undergoing an extensive review. This included public consultation. You can find more about
this process on the Council’s website:
2024 District Plan - Plans, policies and bylaws - Wellington City Council
District Plan Review timeline - Plans, policies and bylaws - Wellington City Council
Please direct any further queries you have about the district plan, including its definitions, to
[email address], in the first instance. Otherwise, I encourage you to seek
independent legal or planning advice to address your questions and/or concerns.
IRC-6887
SharePoint is the primary system used by the Council for general record management.
If writ en notes taken during meetings or phone calls are filed in a central system, they may
be retrievable if searched for. Calls make to our Contact Centre are recorded and can be
made available. When conducting searches of material, we use key words or phrases that
are related to the request. These wil depend on the information being requested. Our
searches typically are limited to MS365 products (Outlook, Teams, and SharePoint etc).
The balance of your points in this email do not conform to the requirements of an information
request under the LGOIMA. The parameters used for searching documents are decided on
a case-by-case basis, so your request for details of searching lacks due particularity, which
is a requirement specified in section 10(2) of the LGOIMA.
You have the right, by way of complaint under section 28(1) of the LGOIMA, to request an
investigation and review of the Council’s response to your information requests above by the
Ombudsman. Information about how to make a complaint is available at
Ombudsman New
Zealand | Tari o te Kaitiaki Mana Tangata or freephone 0800 802 602.
Nāku noa, nā
Susan Sales
Senior Advisor Of icial Information
Strategy and Finance
Wellington City Council | 2 of 13
Appendix
IRC-6800
From: Wellington RatePayer <[FYI request #27779 email]>
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2024 10:48 PM
To: BUS: Of icial Information <[Wellington City Council request email]>
Subject: Of icial Information request - Planning Department: Consideration of Neighbours on
consent submit als
To whom it may concern,
I am seeking clarification on how Wellington City Council (WCC) determines the impact of
new building proposals on neighbours' amenities, specifically concerning sunlight, views
gained or lost.
My concern is whether there are existing regulations, guidance, or example outcomes that
can be followed in a clear and consistent manner, without risk of bias.
To better understand the determinations one can expect from WCC and ensure they are
developed in a transparent and fair manner, I have outlined several questions below.
In the context of a resource consent for a new building and related earthworks, assuming
compliance with cut and fil height, height limits, area, materials, and sun envelope as
defined in the district plan, I respectfully request answers to the following:
Regulations and Guidance:
Are there any national, regional, or local regulations that define the maximum distance to
consider when assessing the impact on neighbours?
If no regulations exist, is there published WCC guidance on what distance constitutes a
reasonable upper limit for considering potential effects?
If no guidance is available, is the determination solely at the discretion of the officer(s)
reviewing the proposal?
If the determination is a personal decision, is this legal and supported by any specific
statement in an act? If so, which one(s)?
If the determination is a personal decision, how is it distinguishable from being arbitrary?
If only reviewed by a peer, how is it distinguishable from departmental bias?
Is the distance consideration consistent or does it vary per context (e.g., Zone)? If there are
variations, what are they (per zone type: Residential, Industrial, Mixed, Rural, etc.)?
Quantifiable Range/Distance:
For a building on a slope (e.g., Roseneath) *above a road*:
What is the maximum reasonable number of properties or distance in meters on the same
side of the street to ask for endorsement/non-objection?
What is the maximum reasonable number of properties or maximum distance in meters left
or right on the opposite side of the street (*below the road*) to ask for endorsement/non-
objection?
For a building on one side of a vale with houses on the opposite side looking towards your
street:
What is the maximum reasonable distance *across the vale* within which requests for
endorsement/non-objection to the proposal should be made?
For a new building on top of a ridge:
What is the maximum number of houses over, or distance in meters, that a neighbour
higher-up on the same ridge can object to having to look down on the proposed building?
Wellington City Council | 3 of 13
Changes to the Local Environment:
Does the right to object change if you are the first or last person to build on your side of the
vale (i.e., if there are no subdivisions/neighbours yet or there are already many who have
built on the road)?
If so, does this not qualify as introducing bias based on being the first in the area?
Visibility Considerations:
Is visibility considered from anywhere on the neighbour's property (e.g., their mailbox) or
only from their interior living space, or inner and outer living space (i.e., including their patio
and/or front lawn)?
If building on one side of a ridge, can a neighbour on the other side, who cannot see any
part of the volume defined by the proposed site's sun envelope, object to the proposal?
Would it change anything if the two properties were instead separated by a tall hedge whose
foliage hid 80% of the building (considering gaps in branches)?
Zone Variations:
Are there any variations in the above considerations based on dif erent zones? Please
specify.
Inclusion/Exclusion of Objections:
Can objections beyond the maximum values provided above be reasonably discounted? If
not, why not? If not defined in regulation, what would permit the inclusion of these objections
without introducing potential bias?
Public:
If the proposal is within district plan guidelines (height, area, sun envelope, etc.), can
members of the public submit an objection to the proposal?
If so under what conditions?
If so under what rights?
Common Sense Checks:
Are there any of the following scenarios that WCC would not discount off the bat, and if not,
why not?
The neighbour can't see the proposed earthworks/building from their property (e.g., inclusive
of their whole property, mailbox, drive, etc.)?
The neighbour can't see the proposed earthworks/building from their exterior living areas
(e.g., inclusive of their exterior patio)?
The neighbour can't see the proposed earthworks/building from their interior living areas
(i.e., inside the building)?
The neighbour can see the proposed earthworks/building, but it is within its own sun
envelope and not casting shadow on any other?
The neighbour can see the proposed earthworks/building, but it is at a distance over 50m
(approx. 3 property widths away)?
The neighbour can see the proposed earthworks/building, but it is at a distance over 75m
(approx. 6 property widths away)?
The neighbour can see the proposed earthworks/building, but it is at a distance over 100m
(approx. 6 property widths away)?
The neighbour can see the proposed earthworks/building, but it is at a distance over 150m
(a whole street away)?
I appreciate your detailed response to ensure clarity and fairness in the resource consent
process is available to all in a clear and consistent manner.
Thank you.
IRC-6857
Wellington City Council | 4 of 13
From: Wellington RatePayer <[email address]>
Sent: Sunday, August 4, 2024 2:56 PM
To: BUS: Official Information <[email address]>
Subject: Of icial Information request - Clarification of method of applying District Plan Rules
and Standards
Dear Wellington City Council,
In the “General Approach” Section of the “How the Plan Works” within "Part 1 – Introduction
and General Provisions” of the new 2024 District Plan, the following instruction is provided:
"The rules have the effect of regulations and set out the activity status for dif erent activities
that may be proposed. There may be a number of rules that apply. Each rule has a specific
number; for example MRZ-R4.
Rules may refer to standards that need to be complied with. Again, there may be a number
of standards that apply. Each standard has a specific number; for example MRZ-S4."
From the above statement we note that it is unclear if Rules have a relationship to one or
more *specific* Standards, or all Standards must be complied with -- in which case there
would be no reason to refer to any Standard from within a Rule.
For example, in the General Rural Zone:
ER-R3: Earthworks for the purposes of constructing and maintaining public walking or
cycling tracks in Open Space and Recreation Zones
is defined as a Permit ed activity where Compliance is achieved with EW-S9.
EW S9: Track width associated with the construction or maintenance of walking and cycling
tracks in the Open Space and Recreation Zones
Noting that:
• no where within the the district plan’s Instructions, nor the text of EW-R3 or EW-S9
refer to any other Rule or Standard.
• EW-R3's text clearly states that the Rule is permit ed when Compliance with EW-S9
is met.
Please confirm that the district plan, as currently published, permits making bike tracks of
1.5m width or less, even if surpassing limits defined in other -- but unspecified -- Standards
(EW-S2, EW-S1, etc.).
If not, please provide an evidenced rebuttal clarifying why the above interpretation is
incorrect, and that the other unreferenced Standards are applicable as well.
Thank you.
Yours faithfully,
Wellington RatePayer
Wellington City Council | 5 of 13
IRC-6858
From: Wellington RatePayer <[email address]>
Sent: Sunday, August 4, 2024 3:29 PM
To: BUS: Official Information <[email address]>
Subject: Of icial Information request - District Plan - Rural Zone Rules and Standards
Dear Wellington City Council,
The Interpretations, Rules & Standards in the 2024 District Plan (DP2024) are surprising,
requiring clarificiation.
EW-R2: Earthworks for the purposes of constructing and maintaining tracks associated with
permit ed activities in the General Rural Zone
Is defined as Permitted, where Compliance is achieved with EW-S8.
From the above statement it is unclear whether compliance with only the called out standard
(EW-S8) is required, or whether other Standards unspecified in the Rule must be met (and if
so, why the specific call out to EW-S8?).
Assuming for now that other Standards beyond the specified EW-S8 standard must be met,
the following Standard,
EW-S1: Area : The total area of earthworks must not exceed 250m2 per site in any 12-month
period.
implies that Wellington Rural zone farmers are only permit ed to Maintain (we're not even
talking about creating here) a total of 41.66m per year (250m2/4m standard width track +2 m
of adjoining cut and fil areas).
Was this the intended outcome?
If not, when wil you be changing the District Plan’s standards to make clear that farmers
retain their right to create and maintain tracks for permit ed activities?
If it was, was it communicated to inhabitants and farmers within wellington’s rural zones that
traditional rights were being curtailed?
If it was, where is this specified and communicated?
If it was, what is WCC’s expectations of process for farmers to follow when required for
health and safety reasons to rapidly repair roads washed away or covered by slips, when the
total area is larger than 250m2?
If it was, what is the process to fol ow to undo this new limit and/or lack of clarity?
Thank you for answering the above to bet er understand whether WCC's intent is to assist its
rural residents or actively work against them.
Thank you.
Wellington Rate Payer
Wellington City Council | 6 of 13
IRC-6859
From: Wellington RatePayer <[email address]>
Sent: Sunday, August 4, 2024 4:35 PM
To: BUS: Official Information <[email address]>
Subject: Of icial Information request - WCC District Plan: Clarification as to Permit ed
Cultivation
Dear Wellington City Council,
As per other LGOIMA requests made today, the applicability and intended interpretations of
the latest district plan’s rules and standards are unclear, requiring clarification.
In the Interpretations section of Part I of the current 2024 District Plan, the following terms
are defined:
EARTHWORKS:
means the alteration or disturbance of land, including by moving, removing, placing, blading,
cutting, contouring, fil ing or excavation of earth (or any matter constituting the land including
soil, clay, sand and rock); but excludes gardening, cultivation, and disturbance of land for the
installation of fence posts.
CULTIVATION:
means the alteration or disturbance of land (or any matter constituting the land including soil,
clay, sand and rock) for the purpose of sowing, growing or harvesting of pasture or crops.
RURAL ACTIVITIES:
means the use of land and/or buildings for agricultural, pastoral, horticultural, and forestry
activities (not covered by the NES-PF); and includes:
a) the storage of products and initial processing as an ancil ary activity of horticultural and
agricultural products produced on the site; and
b) the storage and disposal of solid and liquid animal waste.
Intensive indoor primary production, rural industry, quarrying and mining activities, top soil
stripping and turf farming are excluded.
With the above definitions in mind, could WCC please confirm -- or provide an evidenced
rebuttal to the contrary -- as to whether farmers and other residents of the Rural Zone retain
their traditional rights to maintain and work their farms?
Our interpretation of the terms, rules and standards is as follows:
a) "rural activities" permit ed in the rural zone include "agriculture" and "pastural activities"
b) "agriculture" and pastural activities include "cultivation"
c) "cultivation" includes the disturbing of the land, turning it, and reforming the "soil, clay,
sand and rock" subsoil as required for drainage or other common agricultural and pastural
preparation activities prior to resowing, growing or harvesting of pasture and crops grown on
it. Note that we are making clear distinction between working a field which may temporarily
expose subsoil "clay sand or rock" but is recovered by topsoil prior to resowing, and "top soil
stripping and turf farming" as defined under Rural Activities.
d) the definition of "earthworks" excludes "cultivation" and therefore cultivation is not subject
to limits on "placing, blading, cutting, contouring, fil ing or excavation of earth (or any matter
constituting the land including soil, clay, sand and rock)".
e) "rural activities" and its sub activity, "cultivation", remains and wil continue to remain
Permit ed activities under GRUZ-R1 of DP2024
Wellington City Council | 7 of 13
And -- noting that it would be clearly impossible to farm if only permit ed to cultivate only
250m2 per year -- remain exempt from Standards defined to constrain earthworks.
Thank you for the clarification as to WCC’s intent to continue to support rural activities, and
cultivation in Wellington’s rural zones.
And if WCC is no longer supporting farmers, what is the intended expectations on farmers in
Wellington's Rural zone, and the processes WCC expects them to follow?
For example, are they required to file a Resource Consent before they turn more than
250sq.m2 a year of soil?
If an existing farm, with existing practices, are they except from requiring consent? Is it by
default exempted, or is it lost if they don't apply for an exception before a certain duration
has expired (e.g.: 6 months from when the district plan coming into effect)? For how long is
an exemption granted? Does it expire? When it expires, what consent wil they be required
to obtain to continue to farm, cultivate, prepare paddocks for horses and cattle, etc.?
Thank you for the clarification as to intent, interpretation, and any new processes expected
of rural rate payers.
Wellington City Council | 8 of 13
IRC-6884
From: Wellington RatePayer <[email address]>
Sent: Thursday, August 8, 2024 9:15 AM
To: BUS: Official Information <[email address]>
Subject: Of icial Information request - WCC DIstrict Plan: Definition of Tree
Dear Wellington City Council,
The definition for the term ‘tree’ which WCC has proposed in the new 2024 District Plan is:
“a woody plant 3 metres or greater in height includes a Tree Fern, but excludes a vine with a
stem diameter less than 50 mm.”
Please provide all meeting notes, correspondence, documents, records, regarding the
reasoning for this definition, source material used, options choice and decision made as to
the meaning of the term.
Please name the version (Draft, Proposed, etc) and date in which this definition was added.
Specifically, whether it was added in a version that was stil open for public feedback and
contest.
The reason:
This definition WCC has proposed is novel, unfit for purpose, and with little basis in
professional literature on the matter.
It appears to be opinionated and with ulterior motive in that
a) reducing the height captures scrub in the definition, affecting coverage statistics
drastically, supporting a distorted statistics of increased tree coverage for political gain and
b) can be used to support the confiscation of use of a larger area of their private land.
As only one example of the reason the matter is significant:
“For example, the estimate of global forest area increased by 300 mil ion ha (approximately
10 %) between 1990 and 2000 simply because the FRA changed its global definition of
forest, reducing the minimum height from 7 to 5 m, reducing the minimum area from 1.0 to
0.5 hectares (ha) and reducing minimum crown cover from 20 to 10 % (FAO 2000)”
Performing the most cursory investigation of the both international and New Zealand specific
literature and research that is publicly available on the web demonstrates that the use of 3m
as a criteria is significantly in the minority, with the majority of definitions being more precise
in terms of trunk count and circumference, and use heights of 5m, tending towards 6m and
8m.
The following were all found within just 20 minutes:
[Specht 1970] “a woody plant more than 5 m tall, usually with a single stem”
https:/ aus01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ffennerschool-
associated.anu.edu.au%2Fmensuration%2FBrackandWood1998%2FHEIGHT.HTM&data=0
5%7C02%7Ciro%40wcc.govt.nz%7C3109c7a003084dcc69d408dcb725f0d1%7Cf187ad074f
704d719a80dfb0191578ae%7C0%7C0%7C638586621635406128%7CUnknown%7CTWFp
bGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D
Wellington City Council | 9 of 13
%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=2udCOY%2Bc%2FnpH1%2FtFfSePKYrDvfdCnAaHv2JMt
crwkDI%3D&reserved=0
“a height of at least four metres and state that there must be a single trunk. A shrub or bush
is a woody plant which is branched directly above or in the ground and therefore does not
form a trunk.”
Src:
https:/ aus01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.vdberk.co.uk%2
Finspiration%2Fmulti-stem-
trees%2F%2F&data=05%7C02%7Ciro%40wcc.govt.nz%7C3109c7a003084dcc69d408dcb7
25f0d1%7Cf187ad074f704d719a80dfb0191578ae%7C0%7C0%7C638586621635416710%
7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1ha
WwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=nSb%2F2J%2Fux1ZFHiFVw04Xc
rI1Dn4m9La03FM%2BTWdYygw%3D&reserved=0
“Tree means a woody perennial plant, typically having a single stem or trunk growing to a
*considerable* height and bearing lateral branches at some distance from the ground.
Src:
https:/ aus01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fenvironment.govt.nz
%2Fpublications%2Ftree-protection-in-urban-environments%2Fkey-terms-and-
definitions%2F%23footnote-
2&data=05%7C02%7Ciro%40wcc.govt.nz%7C3109c7a003084dcc69d408dcb725f0d1%7Cf
187ad074f704d719a80dfb0191578ae%7C0%7C0%7C638586621635423414%7CUnknown
%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI
6Mn0%3D%7C60000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=rbjk3aY659CeirL8Qnom02m7GJJfTRtlPMzIs0P
B7TY%3D&reserved=0
Src: Key terms and definitions | Ministry for the Environment
Src: Defined by the Environment Court having regard to the Shorter Oxford English
Dictionary, 6th Edition, OUP
“New Zealand has a large number of trees (215 species ≥6 m in height). . However, this
richness is due to a greater abundance of *small* trees (≤15 m in height)”
Src:(PDF) Comparative biogeography of New Zealand trees: Species richness, height, leaf
traits and range sizes (researchgate.net)
“A tree is a woody plant with an erect perennial trunk at least 7.5 cm in diameter at 1.3 m, a
denitely formed crown of foliage, and a height of at least 4 m.” (Lit le 1980) or so precisely
inclusive that many species that most would regard as shrubs are included: “…any woody
species reaching 3 m or more in any part of its range” (Adams & Woodward 1989).. Here,
we will refer to self-supporting, woody species ≥6 m high as ‘trees’ and woody plants less
than 6 m high as ‘shrubs’. This makes structural sense because tall woody plants with
obligate multiple stems (e.g. mallee eucalypts) usually have a maximum crown height of 5m
or less (Givnish 1984). A further advantage of using this denition is that compilations of
‘trees’ usually include almost all woody species ≥6 m but may use a variety of criteria with
regard the inclusion of shorter species. In New Zealand, the 6 m minimum excludes nearly
all woody plants conned to near tree-line situations in the so-called ‘subalpine’ scrub zone,
thus giving a grouping largely restricted to forest. Analyses of tree distributions have often
used a ≥3 m denition (Adams & Woodward 1989; Huntley 1993) and for comparative
purposes, we have also developed a broader compilation that includes such species. To
Wellington City Council | 10 of 13
avoid confusion, here we refer to this broader grouping of all woody plants ≥3 m as
‘arborescents’. We refer to trees ≤15 m as ‘small trees’ and those >15 m as ‘canopy trees’.
Src”(PDF) Comparative biogeography of New Zealand trees: Species richness, height, leaf
traits and range sizes (researchgate.net)
“Forest is determined both by the presence of trees and the absence of other predominant
land uses. The trees should be able to reach a minimum of 5 meters in situ.”
(PDF) What is a forest? Definitions do make a dif erence: An example from Turkey
(researchgate.net)
“The General Directorate of Forestry (GDF 2009) refers to 8m or above and the Forest and
Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO) defines trees as 5m or above.”
“In the same search, I found nearly 240 definitions of tree (Lund 2013). While a ‘tree’ is
usually considerd a single-stemmed Woody perennial, some national definitions include
“Most definitions include a height of at least four metres and state that there must be a single
trunk.”9
“A ‘tree’ is a woody plant, growing to greater than 5 meters in height (16 feet), with a single
dominant stem.”
[Treepedia10]
One can go on. But it is clear from the above quick search that 3m is highly contestable, 4m
is stil contestable, 5m less so, and 6m and 8m dif icult to contestable.
We also note that WCC has produced a public GIS map of trees at 6m or above. As such we
recommend that WCC align its definition with its maps and use 6m to not mislead citizens.
Please state whether the term wil be reviewed and corrected by WCC to be a definition that
wil not skew statistics to communicate an increase in tree coverage even though the gain
demonstrated would only be a paper based one.
If not, please provide precise instruction on how it can be contested to be changed.
Yours faithfully,
Wellington RatePayer
Wellington City Council | 11 of 13
IRC-6886
From: Wellington RatePayer <[email address]>
Sent: Thursday, August 8, 2024 1:45 PM
To: BUS: Of icial Information <[email address]>
Subject: Of icial Information request - WCC Planning - Error correction process
Dear Wellington City Council,
If a WCC Planner incorrectly includes in a consent constraints above and beyond the rules in
the operational district plan, what is the process to remediate the overreach?
Consider for example a context where a subdivision land use resource application was
applied for and was consented for a dwelling location in a Zone where residential buildings
are Unrestricted, and the published District Plan’s Standards permit 8m high dwel ings, but
the approving planners includes a statement to the effect that “the proposed house may not
be higher than 5m” - clearly with no basis in any statement in the operational district plan,
what is its enforceability?
Furthermore, if having no legality, and therefore an unfounded constraint, what is the
process to follow to have it removed? And how would the submit er retrieve costs for advice,
meetings, request, and following this up to completion? What about the time for lost months
waiting for this to be corrected?
Yours faithfully,
Wellington RatePayer
Wellington City Council | 12 of 13
IRC-6887
From: Wellington RatePayer <[email address]>
Sent: Thursday, August 8, 2024 3:09 PM
To: BUS: Official Information <[email address]>
Subject: Of icial Information request - LGOIMA Record Search Capabilities
Dear Wellington City Council,
You have previously denied providing responses to LGOIMAs requests on the basis that it
would be too dif icult to find relevant documents.
To better understand what capabilities and constraints you must work within. could you
please answer the following questions?
- what software system does WCC use to manage your documents - specifically planning
consent submissions and consents? SharePoint? O365 online, Other?
- What fields can and do you search regularly use to search for relevant content?
For example:
Date created/uploaded?
Date last modified?
Author(s)?
Department/Group? (e.g.: Planning versus Abatements versus etc.)
Purpose?
District Plan Zone?
Voting District?
Property/Account id?
Document Id?
Document Title?
Document Content?
Can you please specify if it is possible to specify whether search criteria/tokens/words have
to match:
- Some terms (OR), or
- All terms (AND)
Do the search terms have to match:
- Exact Case?
- Exact Word? ("Container" would not match "Containers")
- Exact Spelling (i.e., letter for letter, or phonetic matching)?
Your response wil inform us how to formulate more precise requests.
Beyond your record management systems, what other systems can you search through?
For example, can and do you search through your inter office chat system (e.g.: Teams,
Slack, etc.) for fragments or full conversations that are related?
What about writ en notes taken during meetings or phone calls?
Are they scanned and recorded and categorised?
Are there any other system we should be considering to name when asking for content?
Thank you.
Wellington RatePayer
Wellington City Council | 13 of 13
