Other Significant Issues
18 submissions provided significant issues that were not attributed to a specific question or proposal from the discussion paper. For the complete analysis refer to the separate Analysis Results Document. The following is a summary of some of the more significant issues.
There was significant comment on the loss of as-of-right access to locate utilities on private land and the requirement to gain easements to build assets on private land. It was suggested that the difficulties and (at times prohibitive) costs or delays associated with obtaining such easements has meant that access to the road reserve for utility services has become increasingly important. It was suggested that this increased dependence on the road reserve has occurred during a period when road traffic volumes have also been increasing rapidly.
There was significant agreement that New Zealand need's a legislative framework to provide an equitable balance between all parties. It was also submitted that a legislative framework needs to provide an equitable balance between the economic and social contribution of each utility to "New Zealand Incorporated" and local communities' future development, and to ensure all parties consider New Zealand's Economic Development.
In terms of definitions, it was suggested that a common set of definitions would be of major benefit, as would a clear and consistent definition of "utility". There was also a call to see the status of utility type assets owned by non Network utility operators (e.g., data lines, oil and condensate pipelines, compressed air lines, ducts etc.,) defined within the scope of this discussion paper, as their presence is frequently unknown and there is always a risk of accidentally striking one during works.
Of note, was Transit NZ's proposal that Toll/Concession roads are outside the definition of road as set in utilities legislation, therefore implying that it can be set that access must be negotiated and the toll operator/concessionaire may recover any costs arising from works.
There were several suggestions for the development of utility corridors in both legislation and practice.
It was submitted that it should be made mandatory that notification must be given to affected parties whenever a non-utility operator intends to install gas and condensate networks, and cattle or pedestrian underpasses within the a road corridor.
Transit NZ submitted a sizeable case suggesting that it was different to ordinary RCAs because it was responsible for State Highways which are higher status roads and therefore its submission should be paid careful attention.
It was submitted that the facilitation of competition in utility operator markets has resulted in duplication of services in the road corridor and is responsible for the increasing congestion issues. There is also competition between incompatible users, e.g. gas mains and electricity cables. It was submitted that the RCA should have a mandate to clearly manage the location of these networks' access.
There was agreement that all parties need to ensure they consider New Zealand's Economic Development in their objectives rather than just self interests as the road (and rail) corridors are the only "modern day commons" available to facilitate the delivery of infrastructure services, and as such needed to be managed in an equitable way so no single utility (e.g. the road surface provider) has preference over another.
It was suggested that stakeholders also need to compromise, cooperate, communicate, and collaborate to achieve win-win solutions. It was suggested there is a great need to make decisions on the basis of "what's best for our community" rather than "how can we do this at the cheapest possible price".
It was noted that any efforts to extract taxes, fees, or levies, restrict corridor access, or give priority to road uses over other uses of the road corridor, will only raise prices for consumers. It was suggested that any additional compliance costs to industry need to be thoroughly evaluated for cost vs. benefit.
There were issues of incompetent contracting staff, poor safety practices, and poor workmanship raised.
Transit NZ raised a number of significant issues on road safety, ultimately suggesting that the Government has committed to a Road Safety Strategy already and that utility legislation and regulations for location and works in the road must be in harmony with that strategy.
Finally, North Shore City Council submitted that the policy framework used for this review was inadequate to seriously address the strategic importance of these infrastructure issues. It was suggested that many of the issues raised in the review were merely "house-keeping" matters. The Council submitted that unless there is a fundamental shift in the governance structure of utilities in the road corridor then current operational difficulties will simply be perpetuated - albeit in a modified form. It urged the Ministry to look at solutions that are sustainable in the long term and not just tinker with the present inadequate framework.
Back to Top