Defining a "Road"
Proposal: Amend the definition of "road" within the Telecommunications Act 2001 to that of the definition of "road" provided within the Electricity and Gas Acts 1992.
39 submissions were received. 34 supported the proposal and 4 did NOT support. It is noted that the two main telecommunications providers, Telecom and TelstraClear, both did not support this proposal.
There was strong support for consistent and standard definitions across all utilities legislation. A significant majority supported the definition of road as provided within the Electricity and Gas Act 1992. There was an alternative suggestion that this definition is too restrictive and that all other utilities Acts should adopt the Telecommunications Act 2001 definition.
It was suggested that the recognised definition of a road is that being from legal boundary to legal boundary (road reserve) as per the Local Government Act 1974 and Transit Act 1989. This is also the same area and legal definition on Survey Office and Deposited plans where land is taken for or vested in road.
Issues to note include the addition to the definition of airspace above property within two metres of the road boundary, and access to paper and unformed roads.
Question: Call for submissions outlining the extent of any disputes over rights to "public places" claimed within the definition of road.
13 submissions were received and all 13 have had NO disputes.
Question: Should the road surface (upon which vehicles travel, and including footpaths) be considered an individual utility alongside other utility operators (e.g. electricity, gas) within the road corridor?
35 submissions were received. 17 responded YES. 18 responded NO. Of note, the majority of those in support were Utilities and the majority of those against were RCAs.
The general feeling from those who did not support the proposal was that roads are a public good universally available to all the public, at all times of day and night, provide universal and free access as a public good, and contribute to the visual character, environment and amenity value for all users and adjoining properties. It was widely suggested that local authorities in New Zealand are RCAs on the basis of the road being a public good and the local authority being the most effective regime through which the community can provide the service. It was felt that this proposal would have far reaching and indeterminate constitutional and common law implications, and would be both a dangerous and unnecessary step.
It was suggested that the road surface should not be considered as of equal status to other utilities as the road is far more vulnerable and valuable as the road surface and construction is different to every other utility because access to any utility beneath the road surface affects the road directly. It was also suggested that roads are primarily for traffic and pedestrian movement and have open access to the full community and are funded by the community, whereas utilities involve individual connections to properties and in most cases, are funded by individual agreements with the utility users.
Those in favour predominantly held the view that it would create greater equality and fairness for those stakeholders of the road corridor. It was suggested that utility operators should be able to impose reasonable conditions on RCA operations that will affect their lines or other works, and that RCAs must at least be required to notify affected utilities of any changes or works.
A significant submission was received from Timaru District Council proposing that collaborative utility corridors be established.
Question: Should the principal objective of the road corridor be to carry vehicular and pedestrian traffic, or provide a corridor for the location of utility networks (including vehicular and pedestrian traffic as a utility)?
40 submissions were received. 22 submitted that the principal objective of the road corridor should be to carry vehicular and pedestrian traffic. The majority of these submitters were RCAs.
18 submitted that it should be a corridor for utility networks including vehicular and pedestrian traffic (as a utility). The majority of these submitters were utilities and utility representative associations.
The general view of those proposing that the principal objective of the road corridor should be to carry vehicular and pedestrian traffic, was that it is only a secondary purpose of a road to provide a corridor for the location of utility networks, where it is practical to do so.
Across the perspectives it was felt that it is important to ensure appropriate protections, rights and obligations on all users of the road reserve. It was also felt that legislation must enable all stakeholders to co-exist in a practical and managed way.
Those calling for equality of statues between stakeholders suggested the road corridor is the last true commons for the location of all public services, and as a public corridor it should be seen as a three dimensional piece of real estate for the carriage of all public access and for utilities as required above and/or below ground.
Of note is the submission that utilities do not hold similar power over any RCA's works. Often, works carried out by a RCA have adversely affected the function or operation of a utility. A typical example being road reconstruction works have often lead to reduced minimum safe distance clearances between overhead network and the road surface or where a road is lowered reducing the cover over an underground network. The Utility is then forced to attend to these problems without recourse to the RCA that made the changes.
Back to Top