Ministry for the Environment PO Box Auckland City Sent via to:

Transcription

1 Wellington Electricity Lines Limited: Feedback on the Proposed National Policy Statement on Urban Development Capacity - Consultation Document. June 2016 To Ministry for the Environment PO Box Auckland City 1143 Sent via to: npsurbandevelopment@mfe.govt.nz FROM: Wellington Electricity Lines Limited ( WELL ) PO Box Lower Hutt 5040 Date 15 July 2016

2 Title of the proposed NPS Address for Service Organisations name National Policy Statement on Urban Development Capacity Edison Consulting Group Ltd PO Box 875 Hamilton 3240 Attention -Tim Lester Wellington Electricity Lines Limited 1 Introduction About Wellington Electricity 1.1 Wellington Electricity Lines Limited ( WELL ) owns and operates electricity distribution network assets within the Wellington Region (Wellington City, the Hutt Valley and Porirua Basin). This network has a system length of 4,600km and serves around 165,000 connected consumers. 1.2 WELL is committed in its regulatory obligation to provide consumers with an effective and secure supply of electricity, which in doing so provides a critical service to customers as well as a public good to local communities and industry. 1.3 As defined in the Resource Management Act (1991), WELL is a network utility operator and infrastructure provider who owns distribution substations, lines and cables located in public road reserve, as well as on private property and along easements. In addition to the distribution network, WELL has the ability to own and operate high voltage (up to 110kV) transmission lines, and associated structures. 1.4 WELL owns and operates critical 1 high voltage lines in rural environments of the Wellington Region. Consequently, WELL has particular interest in the development of national-level environmental policy statements that have the potential to impact the safe and efficient operation and provision of such critical infrastructure. 1.5 As an infrastructure provider WELL has an interest in regard to the development and implementation of the National Policy Statement on Urban Development Capacity (NPS-UDC). 1.6 WELL has reviewed the proposed NPS consultation document and provides the following feedback. 1 Critical lines are high voltage lines that supply essential public services such as the hospital, civil defence facilities or Lifeline sites; or supply large industrial or commercial electricity consumers; or supply 1000 or more consumers; or are lines that are difficult to replace with an alternative electricity supply if they are compromised

3 2 Submission Context 2.1 WELL is an Electricity Distribution Business (EDB) and welcomes strategic initiatives, where appropriate, including the introduction of national policy statements for matters of national interest such as the NPS-UDC. 2.2 As a key network utility infrastructure providers WELL have significant interest in the development and implementation of the NPS-UDC. Hence, WELL s core interest in the proposed NPS lays in ensuring that the document contains appropriate recognition of all applicable infrastructure, (and hence infrastructure providers); and furthermore, that such recognition is able to be unambiguously interpreted by Regional and Local Councils as primary stakeholders of the NPS-UDC. 2.3 WELL note that in the document s Preamble (on page 7) the NPS-UDC will require... development capacity provided in plans to be serviced or likely to be serviced with infrastructure.. WELL strongly support this fundamental requirement, particularly in regard to the resulting...better integration and coordination between land use and infrastructure planning Notwithstanding the above, and as indicated in the NPS-UDC Report on section 46(a) consultation submissions, the first round of consultation was undertaken between December 2015 and February WELL note that, during this preliminary consultation phase, only limited feedback was obtained from Energy Sector infrastructure providers 2 (these being Transpower and Genesis); consequently, WELL considers that more input from the electricity distribution sector would ensure a critical component of infrastructure provision is adequately recognised and technical considerations are better integrated into the final NPS-UDC. 2.5 As indicated in the proposed NPS consultation document, the overarching theme for the NPS-UDC is that growth and development in urban areas should be expected and has to be accommodated in a way that maximises benefits and minimises costs. 2.6 WELL supports this theme to the extent that the provision of electricity network infrastructure needs to be efficient and cost effective but also is provided in a way that is resilient, and will not compromise safety. 2.7 WELL seek that the final NPS-UDC provides a clear and coherent message to local authorities that key network utility infrastructure providers - and their technical requirements - are integral considerations in determining land deemed to have development capacity. 2.8 WELL welcomes the opportunity presented by the proposed NPS to improve the evidence base and the flow of information between local authorities and infrastructure providers. Consequently, WELL are particularly supportive of the NPS-UDC intent for sensible coordination between RMA and infrastructure planning. 2.9 WELL s interest in the proposed NPS is to ensure such coordination reflects the fundamental and critical role electricity distribution infrastructure has in determining an area s development capacity The following section of this submission will address specific elements of the draft and provides a series of recommendations on how the document could more effectively enable the safe and efficient provision of critical electricity supply infrastructure. 2 As indicated in Appendix 1 of the Cabinet paper: Approval for public consultation on a proposed National Policy Statement on Urban Development Capacity

4 3.0 Interpretation (Section 3) Infrastructure 3.1 Upon review of the proposed NPS consultation document, WELL note that an intent of the national urban planning initiative is to improve land use decisions by requiring local authorities to coordinate with infrastructure providers in an effort to integrate regulatory and infrastructure planning. 3.2 In particular, the NPS-UDC would require local authorities to prepare Housing Needs and Business Land Assessments that rigorously estimate demand and supply, hence requiring local authorities to consult with both infrastructure providers and the development sector in preparing these assessments. 3.3 Supporting documents (i.e., the Regulatory Impact Statement and consultation summary document) are quite clear in that one of the primary purposes of the NPS-UDC is to ensure that a local authority identification of development capacity takes in to account how such land will be, or could be, serviced by the required infrastructure. 3.4 Whilst it is acknowledged that the NPS-UDC is a policy tool directed at regional and territorial authority regulatory planning processes, WELL consider that as currently proposed the document s primary coverage of Infrastructure is too limited and will see its direct application restricted to water supply, wastewater, stormwater, transport, and passenger services. 3.5 EDBs provide key network utility infrastructure that is instrumental to land use development efficiencies as envisaged by the NPS-UDC 3. Furthermore, WELL contend that the provision of such EDB infrastructure is no less integral than the Council owned infrastructure, identified in the draft policy statement, when determining successful outcomes in Medium and High Growth Urban Areas. 3.6 Current interpretation in the proposed NPS for the term Infrastructure does not integrate regulatory and infrastructure planning. Consequently, WELL consider that without further refinement, a fundamental element to successful implementation at the regional and local level of the policy statement will not be effectively realised. 3.7 To ensure that the intent of the operative NPS-UDC is correctly applied consistently by regional councils and territorial authorities, WELL recommend that the proposed interpretation of Infrastructure in Section 3 be amended to align with the Infrastructure interpretation as provided in the Resource Management Act (1991). 3.8 By aligning with the RMA interpretation for Infrastructure in the NPS-UDC, WELL contend that all Council owned infrastructure will be still be captured; however, key network utility infrastructure will also be explicitly provided for in local authorities giving effect to the National Policy Statement. 3.9 In adequately defining the scope of infrastructure (to explicitly include key network utilities) the purpose of the NPS-UDC objectives and policies will be better met subsequently clarifying the level of application. Development Capacity 3 Page 7 of the Commerce Commission document Using land for housing (September 2015) identifies electricity infrastructure as being infrastructure needed to support urban growth

5 3.10 WELL note that in the interpretation of Development Capacity, the proposed NPS refers to:...any relevant management plans and strategies prepared under other Acts in regard to Council considerations WELL agree that in identifying land with development capacity, relevant management plans should be taken into account. However, the determination of what management plans or other Acts are exactly is presently unclear in the proposed NPS-UDC WELL pays particular regard to the above uncertainty and wishes to see either supporting documents, explanatory notes and/or implementation guidelines (as prepared by MfE) explicitly identify key network utility infrastructure provider s Asset Management Plans - or AMPs (as required under the Commerce Act 1986), as being relevant plans AMPs are required to inform interested parties of - amongst other things - projected network investment, future changes to electricity distribution networks to accommodate new technologies such as carbon neutral embedded generation, EV uptake, and ultra-fast broadband asset colocation. AMPs clearly identify network growth as they may or may not apply to an area with Development Capacity ; consequently, WELL contend that EDB AMPs are a useful tool, and suitable to be taken into account when intelligently assessing or defining an area s development capacity. Recommendations Infrastructure to be given the same meaning as Section 2 of the Resource Management Act Explanatory notes, support material and MfE implementation guides to recognise the need for infrastructure providers Asset Management Plans to be taken into account when determining and assessing an area s development capacity.

6 4.0 Objectives 4.1 The objectives of the NPS-UDC will indirectly affect WELL s interests through a local authorities obligation to collaborate with them in a coordinated approach to data sharing and decision making primarily in regard to key network utility infrastructure provision. Coordinated Evidence and Decision Making 4.2 Objective OC1 seeks to promote coordination between councils and infrastructure providers. As an infrastructure provider, WELL expects to see OC1 expanded upon in the MfE guidance documents for implementation. 4.3 As a high-level objective, it is difficult to envisage the local authorities planning process upon which Objective OC1 will be given effect to; however, WELL consider at this stage of the NPS-UDC development, the recognition of the concept of infrastructure corridor management is appropriate. 4.4 Corridor management applies to actual or potential routes for linear infrastructure (council and non-council owned) that can be established and/or managed to avoid land use conflicts, for future growth, as well as matters such as reverse sensitivity (in the case of existing infrastructure). 4.5 The proposed NPS-UDC consultation document states (on page 24) that: The topic of reverse sensitivity is very complex. The focus of the proposed NPS is to further enable development capacity, and addressing reverse sensitivity would require significantly more analysis than has been possible. 4.6 WELL does not agree with this statement as it relates to infrastructure provision; rather, it is considered that the NPS-UDC can effectively address reverse sensitivity effects through directing a planning approach for local authorities that is inclusive of infrastructure corridor identification being an integral component of a piece of land s development capacity. 4.7 WELL acknowledge that the NPS-UDC document itself need not explicitly specify the provision of infrastructure corridors. Rather, support material such as the MfE implementation guidelines should direct local authorities to formally adopt/consider an infrastructure corridor management approach. 4.8 WELL consider that adopting such a corridor management approach will assist councils in adhering to OD1 and OD2 via enabling urban growth in the short, medium and long-term, whilst also provision of infrastructure that is responsive to market demands. Recommendations The Ministry for the Environment to provide direction to local authorities (via NPS- UDC guidance documents) on how they are to successfully coordinate land-use planning with the provision of infrastructure. The Ministry for the Environment guidance documents are to direct local authorities to consider an infrastructure corridor and management approach as a means to give effect to Objective OC1.

7 5.0 Policies Outcomes of Decision Making 5.1 Policy PA1 falls under the policy set for outcomes for decision making, and applies to all local authorities. PA1 requires policies and plans to take into account, amongst other things: providing for the efficient use of resources, having particular regard to scarce urban land and infrastructure WELL support proposed Policy PA1 because it strengthens the case for development capacity to consider infrastructure requirements. However, WELL s support for the proposed policy is contingent on the operative NPS-UDC interpretation (in section 3) being amended as sought- so that the term Infrastructure has the same meaning as in Part 2 of the RMA. Recommendation Infrastructure to be given the same meaning as Section 2 of the Resource Management Act Evidence to Support Decisions 5.3 Policies PB1 to PB3 apply to Medium and High Growth Areas, and relate to Evidence to support decisions. 5.4 WELL s interest in this policy group relates to ensuring that robust evidence, in the form of housing and business assessments, are implicit in the policies, and that such assessments are undertaken transparently and collaboratively with all infrastructure providers. 5.5 Policy PB1 sets a fast approaching deadline for Medium and High Growth Areas to prepare housing and business land assessments. Given the relatively short timeframe in which to prepare such assessments, WELL would like to see any implementation guide (or housing and business land assessment template) stipulate the requirement for stakeholder input prior to the assessment being finalised by the relative local authorities. 5.6 WELL note that Policy PB3 identifies that housing and business land assessments should have particular regard to the actual and likely availability of infrastructure. However, WELL contend that critical electricity supply infrastructure needs explicit recognition as Infrastructure in the operative NPS-UDC. As the document is currently proposed, the only infrastructure to which will have particular regard is Council owned 3-waters, roading and transportation. 5.7 WELL expect to see supporting documents (i.e., explanatory notes) and local authority implementation guidelines detail how local authorities are to provide particular regard to a piece of land s actual and likely availability of electricity supply infrastructure. In providing such information about how this is to be achieved consistency with Policy PB4 will be provided to WELL s satisfaction. 5.8 The intent of Policy PB4 is supported by WELL as it states local authorities MUST consult with infrastructure providers. Such consultation is conducive to the release of a draft housing and business land assessment prior to finalising.

8 Recommendations Draft Housing and Business Land Assessments to be prepared for formal Stakeholder feedback. Ministry for the Environment to prepare Housing and Business Land Assessment templates. Infrastructure to be given the same meaning as Section 2 of the Resource Management Act Coordinated Evidence Base and Decision Making 5.9 Policies PC1 - PC3 give effect to Objective OC1 and hence direct local authorities in Medium and High Growth Areas to coordinate evidence and decision making WELL consider that Policy PC1, as proposed, maintains the status quo for any local authority plan change process i.e., the standard notification process pursuant to Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act. Consequently, WELL consider that there is an element of redundancy in the proposed policy In regard to this perceived redundancy WELL contend that more meaningful consultation with key stakeholders could be undertaken should Policy PC1 be amended as indicated (additional text underlined, strikethrough for deletion): PC1: When developing plans and regional policy statements to implement this National Policy Statement, and prior to public notification, local authorities must consult with other local authorities, local key utility services infrastructure providers and central government infrastructure providers that share jurisdiction over a Medium Growth Urban Area or a High Growth Urban Area Such amendments would help ensure key network utility infrastructure providers have early input into the NPS-UDC derived policy/plan changes thereby clearly establishing and integrating infrastructures technical considerations prior to general notification By enabling preliminary input into impending policy/plan changes by infrastructure providers, WELL contend that better integration of infrastructure requirements (i.e., housing setbacks from infrastructure corridors, area yields, advancements in smart-grid technologies etc.) will be reflected in the policy/plan changes thereby informing interested and affected parties from the outset and prior to the statutory submission period Policy PC2 provides local authorities with direction on data sharing with infrastructure providers. WELL are in agreement with the intent of this policy as, upon interpretation, it would involve integrating data and projected network expansion, as indicated in WELL s AMP, with the local authorities strategic identification and development capacity assessment. As previously indicated (submission points 3.12 and 3.13) WELL request that NPS-UDC implementation guides, and support documents, identify infrastructure providers AMPs as relevant plans WELL has submitted support for Objective OC1; similarly, WELL s submission on Policy PC3 is in support

9 particularly in regard to local authorities and infrastructure providers working together to ensure coordinated strategic land use planning The basis of WELL s support for Objective OC1, and subsequently Policy PC3, is the opportunity to collaboratively identify and provide for infrastructure corridors (inclusive of how these corridors are to be managed i.e., structure setbacks, vegetation clearance etc.) WELL consider that the identification of infrastructure corridors need not only apply for new, or strategically planned future infrastructure requirements but also for existing infrastructure (i.e., WELL s subtransmission overhead line network) which can have retrospective corridor designations to mitigate new urban development (i.e., rural intensification) effects and issues arising from reverse sensitivity WELL recommends that, in preparing implementation guidance for the NPS-UDC, the use of infrastructure corridors, and management provisions, are expressly identified. Recommendations Amend Policy PC1 so as to enable key network utility infrastructure stakeholders (such as WELL) to provide policy or plan change input prior to public notification. Explanatory notes, support material and MfE implementation guides to recognise the need for infrastructure providers AMPs to be taken into account when determining and assessing an area s development capacity. NPS-UDC implementation guidelines identify the use of infrastructure corridors, and management provisions as a means of local authorities and infrastructure providers to work together. Responsive Planning 5.19 Policies PD1 PD4 relate to a local authorities responsive planning with high-level direction for planning processes in Medium and High Growth Areas Upon review of this policy set, WELL wishes to reiterate their stance as submitted on the Resource Legislation Amendment Bill (2015); this being to ensure that any local authority policy or plan changes - giving effect to the NPS-UDC - will not expose existing critical electricity supply infrastructure to impacts such as reverse sensitivity, or result in breaches of electricity industry statutory regulations (i.e., NZECP 34: ) WEL acknowledge that the proposed NPS-UDC is process orientated, with the ensuing result being that local authorities will interpret and give effect to the policy statement through the use of their own planning tools and methods. Whilst various council interpretations are not necessarily to be discouraged - WELL would prefer to see more direction provided on Policy PD1 PD4 to local authorities, via the implementation guideline, to mitigate the potential for short-term development oversights. 4 New Zealand Electrical Code of Practice for Electrical Safe Distances

10 5.22 For instance, Policy PD3 states that local authorities must consider:...in the short term, further enable development through customer-focused consenting processes, and where appropriate amending the relevant plans. Whilst the short term is defined as within a period of 3 years in the proposed NPS, there is no direction given on what exactly a customer-focused consenting process is. WELL assume customerfocused consenting could be taken to mean a less robust consent process for short-term land developments WELL appreciate the proposed NPS needs to have timeframes for implementation; however, as currently provided for in Policy PD3, there may conceivably be risk that Medium or High Growth Area local authorities may inadvertently enable a particular development (i.e., rural/residential subdivision) through a customer-focused consenting process, which fails to take in a full consideration and assessment of impacts on existing or future infrastructure provisions As indicated in the Resource Legislation Amendment Bill (2015) submission, WELL wish to reiterate that an unintended and potentially far-reaching consequence of under-regulated, or fast-tracked, consenting (i.e., customer-focused consent processes) could breach electrical safe distances (as specified in NZECP 34) if there is a reduced ability for appropriate technical assessment or input to be undertaken In consideration of the above, WELL require that explanatory notes, or implementation guidance documents for Policy PD3 clearly stipulate that any customer-focused consent process will incorporate robust mechanisms to address actual or potential effects of existing or proposed physical resources (i.e., infrastructure). Alternatively, an interpretation of customer-focused consent processes could be provided (in Section 3 of the proposed NPS) providing clear, unambiguous guidance to local authorities to take into account effective corridor management principles (refer submission point 5.18). Recommendations An interpretation is provided for customer-focused consent processes. The Ministry for the Environment guidance documents to specify that any customer-focused consenting process will not preclude robust assessment of development impacts on physical resources to which infrastructure is considered to be a physical resource. High Growth Area Policies 5.26 WELL s network of electricity supply infrastructure is contained within a Medium Growth Area as defined in the proposed NPS-UDC. Subsequently, and at this point in time, Policies PD5 to PD9 are not directly applicable to the relevant local authorities in the Wellington Region.

11 6.0 Key Questions 6.1 Whilst the NPS-UDC has been provided in draft form, the consultation document attached to the proposed NPS provides the opportunity for feedback on what are termed Key Questions. 6.2 Overall, WELL has provided comments in regard to each of the relevant Key Questions in the body of this submission. However, for the sake of completeness the following section of this submission will provide a concise response to specific key questions relevant to Infrastructure. 6.2 Applicable Key Questions Meeting a range of demands Is there anything that would contribute to better understanding the supply and demand of development capacity? Response: WELL consider that the NPS-UDC consultation document correctly identifies that local authorities need to consider if local businesses are changing and what this might mean for assessing development capacity demand. In response to the key question posed above, WELL suggest that any forthcoming NPS-UDC guideline document(s) provide direction for local authorities - on preparing their draft Housing and Business Land Assessment - to take into consideration the critical importance of key network utility infrastructure for emerging industries (i.e., large-scale server farms, home based enterprise etc.) to support and sustain economic/business growth. Implications for Infrastructure Would the proposed policies contribute to better coordination between land use planning and infrastructure provision? Response: WELL has discussed Policies PC1-PC3 in this submission and indicated support of the policies to better coordinate land use and adequate key infrastructure provision that is critical to successful urban development. However, such support is contingent on the recommendations that have been made these being: Provide for preliminary key infrastructure stakeholder input prior to the public release of proposed policy statements/ plan changes as part of the notification process. Require local authorities to consider Asset Management Plans of key network utility infrastructure providers when determining development capacity hence sharing data and network growth projections. Provide specific direction to local authorities for meaningful application of infrastructure corridors (not limited to Council- owned infrastructure), and a clear scope for infrastructure corridor management requirements.

12 What else would assist with better coordination? WELL contend that by adapting the recommendations made in this submission, particularly in regard to Policies PC1 - PC3, the proposed NPS will contribute to better land use planning and infrastructure provision. 7.0 Conclusion 7.1 WELL is an Electricity Distribution Business (EDB) and is responsible for the safe, effective and secure distribution of electricity within the Wellington Region. 7.2 WELL welcomes, in principle, the Ministry for the Environment s introduction of a National Policy Statement for Urban Development Capacity as a means to help alleviate housing and business land supply pressure. 7.3 Through submitting on the proposed NPS, WELL has sought to put in place particular considerations to ensure its land use planning initiatives incorporate the technical requirements of electricity distribution infrastructure. 7.4 A key consideration of WELL is ensuring that the NPS-UDC appropriately covers electricity networks in its definition (Interpretation) of Infrastructure. As electricity supply infrastructure is integral to successful residential and business development, any failure of the NPS to appropriately provide for such networks will be to the detriment of the national policy as a whole. 7.5 Similarly, WELL s submission has sought to have WELL s (and all other network utilities ) Asset Management Plans be explicitly recognised as a relevant plan upon which local authorities are to have regard to in determining a piece of land s development capacity. In providing for this recognition, WELL content that a coordinated link between RMA land use planning and infrastructure provision can be realised. 7.6 WELL has made a series of comments and recommendations about the proposed NPS objectives and policies. WELL contend that in MBIE and the MfE adopting such comments and recommendations, the operative NPS-UDC will be better placed to achieve its intended goal: being that growth and development in urban areas should be expected and has to be accommodated in a way that maximises benefits and minimises costs. 7.7 WELL are happy to provide clarification of any issue covered in our submission. Signature for and on behalf of Wellington Electricity Lines Limited: Tim Lester tim.lester@edison.co.nz