This report may be cited as
The dual role of council, the NESTF and the Code of Practice for Utility Operators’ Access to Transport Corridors
Download 244.21 Kb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- 7 Issues with the NESTF
- 7.1 Issues requiring more guidance
- 7.1.2 Definition of ‘vicinity’
- 7.1.3 Measurement issues
6.2 The dual role of council, the NESTF and the Code of Practice for Utility Operators’ Access to Transport CorridorsSection 135 of the Telecommunications Act 2001 grants network operators the right of access to undertake works in the road reserve as long as they comply with any “reasonable conditions that the local authority (or other person who has jurisdiction over that road) requires”. The National Code of Practice for Utility Operators’ Access to Transport Corridors (Utilities Access Code) came into force in November 2011 and sets out processes and procedures for network operators and local authorities (or ‘corridor managers’) to interact with each other. The Code was mandated by the Utilities Access Act 2010. One of the purposes of the Code is to create a model set of ‘reasonable conditions’ that apply to a road-opening notice, because previously there was an unwarranted level of local variation to those conditions. The Code aims to reduce the set of local conditions to those that are justified by local geography. However, the new Code still accommodates local conditions as insertions within the body of the Code, and some of these conditions are still idiosyncratic. For instance, Wellington City Council has a set of cabinet size conditions that are inconsistent with the NESTF. The Code is being reviewed in late 2013 and may address the issue of local conditions. Conversations with national industry players suggest that the presence of NESTF inconsistent local rules is not necessarily a problem. As discussed in section 4.1.1, national operators use the specifications of the NESTF to source their equipment, not the specifications of local rules. Officials from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment and the Commerce Commission expressed concern about a potential conflict between the Code and the NESTF, but we could not identify instances where serious difficulty arose due to the ‘reasonable conditions’ of the corridor manager being inconsistent with the NESTF. Figure 1 illustrates the relationship between district plans, the NESTF and the Utilities Access Code. The RMA comes into play at the planning stage of development, and precedes the implementation stage, when the Code comes into play. Figure 1: Relationship between district plans, the NESTF and the Utilities Access Code 
* NESTF rules prevail over those in a district plan, except where the NESTF specifies that rules in a district plan may be more stringent. ** For state highways this is the New Zealand Transport Agency. Planning permission to install is granted under the RMA (either through the NESTF or a district plan). This is a necessary step preceding the corridor management requirements of the roadside reserve under the Utilities Access Code. The Code is given effect through the Utilities Access Act 2010, and both this Act and the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) must be complied with. One council suggested that their corridor management would like more involvement with the siting of infrastructure permitted under the NESTF, and cited an increase in footpath clutter because of the Ultra-Fast Broadband roll-out. It was also clear that there is potential for operators to incur transaction costs at the corridor manager interface and at the roadside. This is not related to the NESTF. Feedback from industry suggests that their interaction with corridor managers varies from council to council. Some of the people we interviewed who were well versed in the Code had never heard of the NESTF and were somewhat perplexed as to how the RMA fitted into the general scheme of things. This is consistent with the role separation within councils, where familiarity with the NESTF is the responsibility of consent teams. It may not have any practical implications, but our scan of this area made it abundantly clear that telecommunications is an extraordinarily complex area, with multiple silos, for which there is no single organisation with oversight. 7 Issues with the NESTFCouncils and industry were asked whether there were any changes they wanted to see made to the National Environmental Standards for Telecommunication Facilities (NESTF). Of the 25 councils that responded to the survey, six suggested changes. Twelve councils didn’t think that change was necessary, and seven responded ‘don’t know’. Industry provided comprehensive lists of suggested changes and additions to the existing NESTF. These suggestions have been classified into those that entail providing more guidance, those that would require a change to current NESTF wording, and those that would require an expansion in the scope of the NESTF. Changes that are considered to be the highest priority for further investigation are discussed in the following section, while appendix 5 contains the full list of suggestions. 7.1 Issues requiring more guidanceInterpretation issues have emerged early during the life of the NESTF and some have still not been resolved. These have the potential to result in inconsistency in application of the NESTF. 7.1.1 Regulation 8, the definition of ‘site’ and the 30 m ruleThis issue was identified in the 2009 stocktake and remains a concern. The drafting of Regulation 8 has caused confusion for councils and industry. The cause of this confusion may be due to interpretations of the word ‘site’, which is used in subclauses 2, 3 and 4. Regulation 8(3) states: This condition applies ... if 2 or more cabinets are located at the same site in a road reserve, next to land that a relevant district plan or proposed district plan does not classify as primarily for residential activities. Industry interprets ‘site’ as being equivalent to ‘property title’, as is the case in Chorus’s response: “We are generally comfortable with the 30 metre separation distance requirement between cabinets in residential areas. However, in terms of Regulation 8(3) which applies to non residential sites, in some situations a single site may be very large, and in some instances may encompass an entire city block (eg, Auckland University covers some entire city blocks in a single title). In this instance, cabinets even 30 metres apart may infringe the allowable standards under this clause for the total footprint of cabinets located at the same ‘site’. This could similarly apply to a large rural property or a reserve. We suggest consideration is given to amending this regulation to enable more than one cabinet to be located within the same site, subject to a minimum separation distances, as an alternative to the current control.” One council suggested that the linear dimensions of a site could be defined.
The second condition is that the network operator ensures that the relevant local authority received, before the telecommunications facility becomes operational, the following: A report that takes into account exposures arising from the telecommunications facilities in the vicinity of the facility. It is not clear what distances classify as being ‘in the vicinity’. One council sought legal advice soon after the NESTF was implemented. If other councils seek advice and that advice differs, this creates a potential for inconsistent application until the body of case law develops.
when measurements are required in a staged site implementation how antenna down-tilt settings are chosen at a site how multiple parameters should be handled when predicting exposures how measurements should be undertaken at sites with difficult access. These situations are described in detail in appendix 6. Directory: sites -> default -> files -> media -> Extra%20downloads -> Source%20file media -> Butler County Tourism & Convention Bureau media -> Appendix 7 – Emergency Plan media -> Working Syllabus University Honors 201 Course Title: “Lost” Literature Course Abstract media -> Employment Claremont McKenna College media -> General information media -> Technicolor to debut new animated preschool series, chamelia, at cartoon forum and mip jr/mipcom media -> Military training network administrative handbook bls acls pals media -> Request for funding to the [insert the foundation/funder’s name] Download 244.21 Kb. Share with your friends:
|