Notification of Affected Parties
Question: Is there good reason for the legislative differences for required notification of affected parties?
22 submissions were received and all submitted that there is not a good reason for the existing legislative differences.
Of note it was suggested that legislation needs to consider any notification requirements that may be imposed through District Plans, and that contractors require the same process for notification of affected parties.
Question: Should they be consistent?
35 submissions were received and all were in favour of the legislation being consistent.
It was suggested that non-legislative remedies such as the Code of Practice, are working satisfactorily in some regions, and that this Code could be widened and strengthened, and more widely adopted.
It was felt that the aim of new legislation should be consistency and fairness in every respect (definitions, timelines, processes, cost-sharing etc). Submitters also called for standardisation of notification procedures and formats across the country. It was suggested that any changes should be subject to cost/benefit analysis.
Regarding the definition of an "affected party" it was submitted that this should only be defined as having assets located within 10m of the proposed works. It was also submitted that it should be clarified from the definition used in the Resource Management Act.
Question: Should the RCA be required to notify affected parties and other utility operators of its intention to carry out works within the road corridor?
37 submissions were received. 36 submitted YES. One submitted NO on the basis that affected parties are distinct from utility operators.
It appears that a number of RCAs currently inform utilities of their roading programmes and coordinate with utilities. It was submitted that the Council's Annual Plan is a good means of early notification.
It was strongly felt that the RCA should notify affected parties only for major works NOT minor maintenance operations, and that these need to be differentiated. It was also suggested works notifiable must include land drainage ditches, water races and irrigation races operated by anybody.
Throughout the submissions for many of the questions it was suggested that Local Authorities need to separate their RCA, Utility operator, and RMA functions to avoid conflicts of interest.
Question: Should the RCA or the Utility Operator be responsible for notifying affected parties?
27 submissions were received. Three answers emerged for who should have responsibility to notify:
- 6 favoured the RCA
- 5 favoured the Utility Operator
- 16 favoured the Works Initiator.
One concept discussed was that the RCA take a more formal management role of the road corridor, including undertaking the notification of affected parties to ensure full notification. On the question of notification, it was evident that submitters favoured the works initiator being responsible for notifying affected parties of works.
Question: Should the RCA take on a coordination role and administer the notification process?
38 Submissions were received. Four answers emerged:
- 10 submitted YES
- 8 submitted YES, the RCA should coordinate but NOT be responsible for notifying on behalf of works initiators.
- 2 submitted that it is already happening.
- 14 submitted NO.
On the question of RCA coordination and management responsibility for the road corridor, this was met with limited support. Throughout the submissions there was some support that one party should certainly have a management role of the road corridor on behalf of all stakeholders. Submitters informed the Ministry that a number of Local Authorities as RCAs currently perform this coordination role with utilities anyway. It was suggested that greater adoption of the Code of Practice and Partnering Agreement, as evidenced in the Rotorua District, would improve coordination of utility and RCA works.
Those against this concept suggested it would add timing delays and unnecessary costs to projects, and would also be a burden on Local Authorities as RCAs, as many are under-resourced as it is.
There was consensus that the RCA should maintain a register of utilities which works initiators can use to ensure they notify all possibly affected parties. The degree of specificity of the information in such a register requires further review - the question lies around the location specificity, accuracy, and liability. There was a strong feeling that any additional responsibilities undertaken by the RCA should be cost recoverable. It was suggested that utilities must maintain responsibility for the recording and accuracy of their asset location information. It was also suggested that any register must be electronic or internet based.
A significant issue was raised by Gisborne District Council regarding the occurrence of cables being laid in road and other reserves by people and organisations other than the traditional utilities. This poses several issues that the Ministry will further review.
Back to Top