Strategic Planning and Coordination
Question: Is there a real issue with current practices of allocating utility space within the road corridor that is posing a barrier to infrastructure development?
34 submissions were received. 29 responded YES. 5 responded NO.
There were significant issues expressed in relation to the unfair hogging of space due to "first up best dressed" or "first in first served" approach that pervades. It was suggested that sometimes utilities have a deliberate strategy to take up as much room as possible to limit competition. There was general agreement that this was an urban issue in major centres and not an issue for smaller towns and rural areas.
There were significant calls for greater cooperative strategic planning between all stakeholders - especially local government leadership. Issues were highlighted regarding subdivisions, especially from utilities concerned that RCAs did not communicate with utilities to co-locate networks during subdivision planning and development. There was suggestion that the TLA/RCA should have absolute control over the location and management of all utilities in the road corridor, including the right to specify the removal of obsolete, redundant or unused assets located in or beneath the Road. It was noted by several utility operators that Utility access is not being addressed as part of the design of new roads and purchasing of the road corridor.
Solutions were submitted including the use of TLA's Subdivision Codes, the NZUAG Code of Practice and Partnering Agreement, the District Plan, and Engineering Standards to control the allocation for all new road construction. It was suggested that while existing roads are subject to best fit, where possible the alignments and allocations set in the engineering standards should be used.
Question: What solutions do respondents propose as providing the most balanced and effective outcome for allocating utility space within the road corridor in a more effective, efficient, and fair manner?
26 submissions were received.
There was significant agreement that RCAs as corridor managers are the agency that can provide the most balanced approach for allocating utilities space. It was felt that legislation needs to support a cooperative and collaborative approach by all parties. It was suggested in several submissions that the RCA should develop corridor management plans and should maintain a register of affected parties to be consulted before any proposed works are undertaken in the road corridor.
Industry initiatives, such as those by NZUAG, also received favourable support. There was significant agreement that all stakeholders should adhere to the NZUAGModel Partnering Agreement.
Legislative solutions that received support included the recognition of equal status of stakeholders, close co-operation and information sharing so potential conflicts can be readily identified and resolved in an effective and efficient manner, and the development of a national standard on location and separation of services. It was also suggested that NZS 4404 Land Development and Subdivision Engineering Code of Practice should be adopted by all. Of note, it was suggested that the Standards New Zealand Handbook 2002:2003 Working in the Road be turned into a standard, rather than it remaining a guideline.
Question: Should it be a legal requirement for RCAs to install utility ducts in all new road construction and road improvement programmes for utility operators to locate utilities?
37 submissions were received. 10 responded YES. 27 responded NO.
The general feeling from all stakeholder sectors was against this idea. There was significant feeling that the installation of ducts in new road constructions is not practical, is too expensive, a poor use of public money, and not cost-effective. There were a number of cost sharing/ownership issues raised. There was also general agreement that installing electricity cables in ducts is problematic and that some utility plant cannot functionally operate when installed in ducting, and is not seen as viable for gravity-based systems. RCAs commented that they have tried installing ducting, but utility operators refused to use them.
Those in favour submitted yes, provided utilities pay. It was submitted that it should also be a legal requirement that utility operators duct when requested to by the RCA, at the utility operator's cost, and that that utility operator share an appropriately sized duct with other utility operators under an appropriate cost sharing arrangement. Of note, it was suggested the question should be rephrased: "should the utilities be required to install ducts when the road is being constructed or rebuilt, or forfeit their right to provide a service to that area?"
Question: Should the RCA be the party responsible for managing utility space within the road corridor through District Plan provisions?
26 submissions were received. 10 responded NO. 12 responded YES. 4 responded YES, the RCA should be responsible, but NOT through the District Plan.
Those in support submitted that the District Plan should be the mechanism for providing the framework for managing utilities. Those against the District Plan concept, submitted that District Plans are not the appropriate mechanism - utility legislation is better. It was also suggested that involving TLA planners would make the process slow, inefficient, and bureaucratic. It was also noted that some RCAs (e.g. Transit NZ) don't operate District Plans.
Those in favour of the RCA managing utility space submitted that the RCA should be responsible, but through Code of Practice and RON requirements, and that the RCA should publish a Road Network Management Plan/Corridor Management Plan. It was noted that RCAs need cost recovery mechanisms for any extra responsibilities. Those against the RCA managing utility space submitted that RCAs lack the technical knowledge required to plan utility network locations, and it will just create another layer of bureaucracy and costs imposed on utilities.
A significant submission was received from Manukau City Council which manages its utility space through the District Plan.
Question: Should the RCA be the party responsible for maintaining a coordinated registry of location of utility networks within the road corridor? If so, how could it be funded?
33 submissions were received. Three answers emerged:
- 11 submitted Registry: YES; RCA responsibility: NO;
- 11 submitted Registry: YES; RCA responsibility: YES; and
- 11 submitted NO.
There was general agreement that each utility should maintain its own register showing the location of its networks and make the information available to other utilities and the public, as is the current practice. There was also general agreement that the RCA should keep a register of which utilities have networks in the area so other utilities and the public can find out who to ask about network assets, notify etc.
Essentially, there was general agreement that there should be some sort of registry or database of utility locations. Contention lies in who should manage it and what form it should take. The RCA as manager of a location database was not popular. There was significant support, however, for a national database operated by a dedicated agency so it would be efficient and effective. It was submitted that centralised management has peripheral benefits such as a national utility contact point and may facilitate links to emergency services and civil defence emergency management. There was also general agreement that it must be web based and link into utility operator databases to ensure accuracy and timeliness. In relation to this, there was significant agreement that Utilities must provide information/data in a format compatible with GIS. It was widely agreed that cost recovery mechanisms would be required - this ranged from user pays to existing TLA rates to industry cost sharing.
Those opposed generally submitted that the concept is just not practical. It was noted by several respondents that information must be kept up to date, but it is difficult to maintain data reliability, accuracy, and keep up to date when accuracy of a central register is dependent on the accuracy of information utilities supply. Another general issue was that of liability issues/risks for incorrect information and consequential damage/injury. It was also noted that it would be complex, difficult, and expensive to merge different data formats and that the costs would outweigh any benefits. It was also submitted that the commercial and competitive risks of disclosing comprehensive network data to a central registry are unlikely to be palatable to utility operators and may lead to incomplete disclosure.
Question: Should an industry body be responsible for maintaining a central registry of location of utility networks within the road corridor? If so, how could it be funded?
24 submissions were received. 17 responded NO. 5 responded YES. 2 thought it was an option to consider.
The consensus was that this was not a supported proposal.
Again, there was general agreement that each utility should maintain its own register showing the location of its networks and make the information available to other utilities and the public, as is the current practice. There were some suggestions for RCAs/TLAs and Utilities providing a joint initiative. Again, there was suggestion that the RCA should keep a register of which utilities have networks in the area so other utilities and the public can find out who to ask about network assets, notify etc.
Opposition was based around additional costs to industry, duplicative agency costs and bureaucracy that RCA already provides to some degree, and liability issues/risks for incorrect information and consequential damage/injury.
Question: Is it "reasonable" for RCAs to publish 2-year plans and "require" utilities to work only within the timeframes stipulated?
27 submissions were received. 10 responded YES. 13 responded NO. 4 suggested other solutions.
There was significant utility opposition to the question, submitting that customer demand can't be managed/forecast. It was submitted that the proposal does not reflect the reality of the market in which utilities operate. The market is demand and technology driven - construction of new works occurs in a largely reactive fashion, in accordance with customer requests and the rapid evolution of new technologies. It was also suggested that it would be an impractical requirement for utilities due to emergency repairs and customer driven requirements, and that the proposal has the potential to introduce unnecessary delays to utilities' ability to maintain and reinforce networks upon the advent of unforeseen developments, often initiated by consumers.
Those who supported the question's proposal submitted that utility operators should be required to plan to the same timescale as RCAs, as forward publishing of plans and a close out time following reconstruction of roading pavements may be an incentive for utilities to come on board at the appropriate time. It was, however, felt that the question is a good idea, but should NOT be legislated as communication and cooperation is better. Although there was also a strong view that there should be a legislative measure to ensure consequences/penalties for RCA's or utility operators who undertake works outside the agreed plans.
It was widely noted that under current legislation (Local Government Act), RCAs are required to publish 10 year plans with the first year being accurate and the next two years being quite close. They are reviewed annually, and rewritten formally every three years. There was significant support for the need for any legislation to recognise that there will be changes to plans within set periods resulting from changes in priorities or simple market reaction, or emergencies. It was suggested that planning timescales should be consistent throughout the country.
Proposal: That the Ministry support and encourage NZUAG as a facilitator, but that this NOT be extended to legislation.
28 submissions were received and all 28 supported the proposal.
It was noted that there is an important role for MED, alongside NZUAG, in establishing, implementing and monitoring the performance of a new utilities regime. It was also noted that NZUAG needs more standing so there is more adoption of programmes, and that legislation need only provide the framework by which NZUAG and stakeholders can organise themselves.
Other Issues Raised
It was noted by NZUAG that the problems of third party damage come more from principals and contractors not adhering to best practice, for which there are several guidelines available. Solutions include better contract monitoring, better inspection of road openings, and greater penalties for poor re-instatement. It was suggested that it may be timely to consider turning the Standards New Zealand Handbook 2002:2003 Working in the Road into a standard, rather than it remaining a guideline.
North Shore City Council made a significant submission proposing the adoption of Road Network Management Plans by TLAs setting out (inter alia) how it will manage the road network including the basis on which utilities will be allowed to operate in the road. The plan would be consulted on, regional consistency would be strongly encouraged, perhaps incentivised, and the TLA would manage, on behalf of the various stakeholders, the GIS system recording the location of all utilities in the road corridor.
Richard Murcott of LINZ made a significant submission regarding information management of utilities' locations. He proposes a solution where each utility owner would be responsible for spatially recording the locations of their plant to a set of minimum specifications, decide what information they might "expose", and provide that minimum location information online. The public geospatial information infrastructure, including a geospatial discovery portal, could be used to "discover" what (or who's) utilities exist within any segment of road reserve. The advantage of this solution is that it provides real time access to the appropriate, most up-to-date utility location data within any vicinity selected nationally.
Back to Top