Utilities Access to the Transport Corridors

1. Access to the Corridors Utilities Access to the Transport Corridors National Code of PracticeImplementation Workshop 1 – 20 May 2009

2. Outline of programme • Introduction and background • Outline of the Code • Latest submissions • Implementing the Code • Implementation issues • Case study and discussion • Next steps • Completing the Code • Governance • Review of the day and feedback

3. Introductory session • Introductions • Housekeeping • Objectives for the day • The journey so far • Report on legislative progress

4. Housekeeping • Emergency procedures • Ground-rules for the day • Cell phones • Handouts • Feedback forms • Parking lot

5. Objectives for the day • To explain the content of the Code • To provide a simple process for every-one to implement the Code in a nationally consistent manner • To identify and address any impediments to implementing the Code • To provide advice and support across all sectors

6. The Journey So Far

7. Why the Code was developed Government’s economic strategy – constant concerns being raised Nationally consistent process Formalise current industry best practice Third party damage problems Need to update Working in the Road: stakeholders not getting enough out of it If we didn’t, Government would!

8. Government Policy Objectives 2006 • “To reduce the costs and inefficiencies arising from the current statutory framework, including avoidable damage to roads and utility networks, delays and disputes, inconsistencies between statutes, and poor coordination • To provide for better management of the multi-use of road corridors in the public interest, including road safety, and balancing the provision of utility services with efficient transport and universal access to roads • To provide the potential for increased utility access to rail and motorway corridors while recognising the transport and safety responsibilities of Transit NZ, and the transport, safety and business interests of ONTRACK.”

9. The context Utilities’ right of access to the corridor Corridor managers’ rights to manage the corridor setting reasonable conditions Definition of roles and responsibilities of the parties Planning, liaison and coordination Maintaining the integrity of the corridor Safe work site minimising public inconvenience Collaboration in good faith

10. Who developed the Code? By the stakeholders for the stakeholders Electricity, gas, telecommunications sectors Local authorities: Roads/ Waters/ Wastewaters Transit NZ ONTRACK Contracting sector Other participating parties include: Government departments and agencies Agents of any of the above – consultants, contractors

11. How the Code was developed NZUAG/LGNZ seminar 19 February 2007 Pan-sector meetings Statement of Intent Directors group Working groups Industry peer review processes Independent technical edit Legal review

12. Current status of the Code • Living document • Some chapters work in progress • Will be reviewed later this year • fix any implementation issues • align with the legislation

13. Future status of the Code Authorised by the proposed Utilities Access Bill (expected 2009) Consistent with legislation Replaces existing Codes/ Handbooks

14. Legislative progress

15. Report from MED • To be done as late as possible

16. Draft Utilities Access Bill • Gives legal status to the Code • Identifies the content • Requirements to have the Code approved by the Minister • Process for amending the Code • Publication • Amends various utility Acts to achieve consistency

17. Purpose of the Code • NZ Inc – benefits to public • Fair and equitable to all users of the road • Minimising disruptions to traffic, public, neighbours • Nationally consistent approach

18. Content of Draft Utilities Access Bill • Purpose of the Code • Utility operators and corridor managers must comply with the Code • Court can order compliance • Powers to regulate if no Code • On legislative programme 2009

19. MED consultation • Improving understanding both ways • Input on process • Joint approach on long-term governance • Opportunity to put forward some ideas for draft bill • Pushing for exposure draft for early industry input – awaiting outcome

20. Legislative process • Bill introduced to the House of Representatives with first reading no less than three days later. • If ‘voted’ to go to second reading, next step select committee process • The select committee: • hears public submissions, • recommends amendments, and • reports recommendations back to Parliament • Second reading takes into account Select Committee Report • Third reading (if ‘voted’ to go) • Royal assent • Enactment three months later

21. Process from here

22. Outline of the Code

23. Document is in Hand • This is a document that has been collaborative effort • Consider the balance is appropriate • Socialised now operationalise • Review to eliminate the fatal flaws • Alignment with legislation • Needs to be used – little point changing until it has been

24. Purpose of the Code To provide a consistent and cooperative framework for the CM and UO to manage the corridor by providing access rights to the UO

25. Principles supporting the Code Working together – regular liaison Consistency – process, reasonable conditions Technical excellence – best practice Equity and fairness - respect Quality – reducing costs, protecting all assets Health and safety – staff and the public Constructive resolution of differences

26. CM systems

27. General Provisions • Explanatory, guidelines and specifications • Expanded to cover full gamut of the access process • Process is generic – parties will still need to agree in some areas • Principles and general outcomes agreed – options for specifics • Delivers nationwide consistency

28. General Provisions cont • Government had defined goals • Code meets all requirements specified by Govt • Underlying data is patchy – got to go forward • Willingness by team to consider any aspect

29. Intention • Share forward plans (eg LTCCP, District Plans, utility work plans) • Work towards a balance of interest • Maintain integrity of transport corridor/road/utility assets • Safety and efficiency • Eliminate, isolate or minimise road safety hazards

30. Overview of Code Contents Introduction Principles supporting the Code Roles and Responsibilities Sharing Key Information Planning for Access to the Road Corridor Working in the Road Corridor Access to Motorways

31. Code Contents Overview cont. Access to Rail Corridors Applying for Corridor Access Reasonable Conditions Compliance Cost Sharing Dispute Resolution Continuous Improvement

32. Code Contents Overview concl. Schedules Interpretation & Construction Forms Template for Reasonable Conditions Process Risk Management Process Referenced documents

33. Motorway issues • Need to keep community connected • Working on motorways problematic • Fastest growing need for capacity • If space, should be for the highest level community need

34. Rail issues

35. Role of the Corridor Manager Communication with stakeholders Co-ordinate where practicable work in the corridor (road) Organise liaison meetings with utilities Receive and process notifications/ requests Set reasonable conditions Ensure and enforce compliance Require reasonable care not to damage other parties infrastructure or causing unnecessary disruption

36. Role of the Utility Operator Notify corridor manager of any impending work Comply with reasonable conditions Reasonable care not to damage other parties infrastructure or cause unnecessary disruption Know and share location of assets in corridor Participate in liaison meetings arranged by Corridor Manager(s)

37. Responsibilities Good quality work Liability for suppliers and agents. Stakeholders are responsible for their agents and contractors. Corridor Managers as Utility Operators – comply with roles and responsibilities of a Utility Operator. Conflicts of interest – set of best practice principles to deal with conflicts of interest between stakeholders.

39. Submissions Thank you to all submitters • Helped to significantly refine the Code • Biggest issue is how some of the provisions may be applied • Agreement on principle, not use • Good consensus on technical issues • Some decisions pending

40. Topics included in submissions • Treating utilities differently and separately • Ensuring that any party cannot abdicate from its responsibilities • Prioritisation of space • Designations • Information sharing • Marking services on roads

41. Submission issues pending • Chapter 8: Access to the rail corridor • Chapter 12: Cost allocation • Chapter 14: Code management

42. What next? • Trust to be earned - relationship • Monitor and review • Want to hear back about areas where the Code has not been/ cannot be used as intended • Can use website (particularly FAQs) to get assistance • Will provide back-up: what do you want?

43. Processes • Co-ordination (liaison meetings, forward planning, information sharing) • Applications (applying, processing, setting conditions) • Cost allocation • Quality and Compliance • Dispute resolution

44. Dispute Resolution • Any matter • Either party can initiate • Step-by-step • Conciliatory • Four options • Process is best practice • Can pick and choose, but reduces options

45. Dispute resolution • Dispute process – will be mandated • Anything disputable and any party – learn to get along • Emphasis on communication • Do you need NZUAG to support dispute process – find expertise? • Knowledgeable mediators

46. Reasonable conditions • Template as part of work approval • Conditions in template will always apply • Special and local conditions • Begin process of developing Local Conditions at any time • Contestability

47. Other Codes • Replaces other Codes • Need to phase out • Legislation will replace

48. Questions?

49. Session 2 How to implement the Code

50. CM systems