AND STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE OF CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL EDWARD GREGORY ON BEHALF OF CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL

Transcription

1 page 1 of 32 BEFORE THE CHRISTCHURCH REPLACEMENT DISTRICT PLAN INDEPENDENT HEARINGS PANEL IN THE MATTER of the Resource Management Act 1991 and the Canterbury Earthquake (Christchurch Replacement District Plan) Order 2014 AND IN THE MATTER of the Transport Proposal (part) STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE OF CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL EDWARD GREGORY ON BEHALF OF CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL 26 MAY 2015

2 page 2 of 32 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION SCOPE OF EVIDENCE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY STATE OF COUNCIL'S INFRASTRUCTURE, POST-EARTHQUAKE FLEXIBILITY IN THE PROVISION OF TRANSPORT FACILITIES _1.doc 2

3 page 3 of INTRODUCTION 1.1 My full name is Christopher Michael Edward Gregory. I hold the position of Asset and Networks Unit Manager at the Christchurch City Council (Council). I have been in this position since October I hold a Bachelor of Science (Hons) qualification in Civil Engineering from the City University, London. I am a member of the Institute of Professional Engineers New Zealand and a Chartered Professional Engineer (CPEng). I am also a member of the Institute of Civil Engineers, and a Chartered Engineer (CEng) in the United Kingdom. 1.3 I have approximately 29 years professional experience since becoming a member of the Institute of Civil Engineers. Prior to my current role, I was employed by the Council as the Infrastructure Assets Manager for 18 months. Preceding my time at the Council I was employed by GHD Ltd in various senior engineering management roles for seven years. Prior to that I provided engineering management services to Queenstown Lakes District Council as Branch Manager of MWH Ltd and then as Managing Director of Imtech Ltd for a total of 11 years. Before this I was the Operations Manager for Far North District Council responsible for its roading, solid waste and stormwater activities. These roles have provided me with over 26 years of senior management experience in managing horizontal infrastructure for local authorities in New Zealand. 1.4 I have been involved in the hearings for the Residential Chapter and Commercial and Industrial Chapters of the proposed Christchurch Replacement District Plan (prdp). In particular, I prepared evidence in chief for the Commercial and Industrial Chapters (dated 13 April 2015) and gave evidence at the hearing on 11 May I also provided rebuttal evidence (dated 25 March 2015) for the Residential Chapter and gave evidence at the hearing on 2 April Most recently, I have provide evidence in chief dated 21 May 2015 for the Subdivision Hearing (that hearing is yet to commence). 1.5 I confirm that I have read the Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses contained in the Environment Court Practice Note 2014 and that I agree to _1.doc 3

4 page 4 of 32 comply with it. I confirm that I have considered all the material facts that I am aware of that might alter or detract from the opinions that I express, and that this evidence is within my area of expertise, except where I state that I am relying on the evidence of another person. 1.6 I have referred to the Christchurch City Council Infrastructure Strategy, March 2015 and the Local Government Act 2002 while preparing this brief of evidence. 2. SCOPE OF EVIDENCE 2.1 This is the fourth statement of evidence I have provided to the Hearings Panel. I have not repeated the evidence that I have previously presented to the Hearings Panel but have cross referenced to it where relevant. This statement builds on the evidence I have previously presented for the Commercial / Industrial Hearing, dated 13 April 2015, insofar as it relates to the Transport Proposal. I rely on and adopt that Commercial / Industrial evidence in this Transport Hearing, and have attached that evidence as Annexure A. I have been asked by the Council to provide evidence on the following issues: (a) (b) (c) the current state of the Council's infrastructure; the way in which the Council provides and funds infrastructure relating to the growth of the transport network; and the way in which having greater certainty regarding the location, timing and form of future growth minimises the infrastructure costs on the Council and the community. 2.2 Although my evidence is provided in the context of the Transport Proposal, it is provided at a high-level, to enable a better understanding into the Council's obligations under the Local Government Act 2002 and how it plans for, provides and funds infrastructure to accommodate growth and development _1.doc 4

5 page 5 of EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3.1 The rebuild programme through the Stronger Christchurch Infrastructure Rebuild Team (SCIRT) is around 70% complete and is due to be finalised in December However, this programme will not repair all damage to infrastructure due to a funding cap. The Council has a programme to restore its roading infrastructure to pre-earthquake performance capability but this will take years to be affordable when balanced with day to day needs. 3.2 The Council has undertaken extensive transport planning work with its regional partners since 2011 to determine the long term network needs. This work has informed an $802M programme of transport projects for the draft Long Term Plan (LTP) that has been prioritised by types of expenditure and which has balanced operational costs against the need to renew existing infrastructure, growth needs, increased levels of service and new services. This draft LTP has had to be derived in an environment of prudent debt management and rating affordability. 3.3 The overall transport programme includes $208M of cycling and public transport projects intended to encourage modal shift to cycles and busses that will result in more efficient use of the transport networks and a reduction in traffic congestion. 3.4 The Council relies on significant funding from the NZ Transport Agency in the delivery of its transport programme. Securing this funding requires the Council to follow a legislative process that considers alignment with regional and national transport plans and objectives together with a business case approach to demonstrate value. This legislative process is in addition to the Local Government Act requirements in the preparation of a LTP. This whole process takes a number of years but does, in my view, result in a robust and integrated transport plan for the coming ten years _1.doc 5

6 page 6 of STATE OF COUNCIL'S INFRASTRUCTURE, POST-EARTHQUAKE The SCIRT programme 4.1 I refer to Section 4 of my Evidence in Chief (dated 13 April 2015) for the Commercial and Industrial Proposals for a description of the SCIRT rebuild programme, its current status and an indication of the likely condition of the core infrastructure networks upon completion of the SCIRT programme in December In that evidence I refer to the SCIRT rebuild programme and at paragraph 4.4 to a total programme cost of $2.23 billion for horizontal infrastructure repairs, that includes roading assets. This is a capped amount agreed to by the parties that does not provide for the full repair of all earthquake damage. It is estimated that the full return to pre-earthquake performance for the roading network will take a further 20 to 30 years. The cost of this ongoing programme of works has been identified in the Infrastructure Strategy (part of the LTP) and has had to be balanced with the normal day to day capital programme needs to provide an affordable programme in the draft LTP. Day to Day Non-rebuild programme 4.3 I refer to Section 5 of my Evidence in Chief (dated 13 April 2015) for the Commercial and Industrial Proposals for an overview of the major infrastructure projects and programme funds that the Council has identified for the coming ten years and incorporated in its current draft LTP to address the growth needs of the Christchurch District. 4.4 In that evidence I refer to the current condition of the roading network and the changing use patterns that have emerged since the earthquakes at paragraphs 5.1 to I further refer to the strategic planning work that the Council has undertaken since 2011 with its transport partners at paragraphs 5.5 to 5.8. This work has identified a programme of roading projects that are discussed in paragraphs 5.9 to 5.13 and which are included in the draft _1.doc 6

7 page 7 of 32 LTP. These projects are principally improvements to roads ranging from projects that support the NZ Transport Agency's RONS (Roads of National Significance) programme to localised improvements to the Council managed network to ensure overall efficiency. 4.6 Fundamental to future operation of the roading network is the encouragement of modal shift to improve efficient use of the network. This is envisaged through provision of improved public transport and cycling networks that align with the Christchurch Transport Strategic Plan (CTSP). The CTSP identifies a strategic road network and other arterial networks by functional purpose i.e. freight, cycle, public transport and walking. 4.7 The Council has embarked upon a Major Cycleways Routes (MCR) programme. This is a network of 13 high standard cycling routes providing over 90 km of safe cycling routes between the suburbs and the central city. The Council has set aside $156M in its draft LTP to construct these routes over the coming seven years. A further $24M is allocated to associated local cycleway connections. 4.8 In the Public Transport area the Council has allocated $28M in the draft LTP to the improvement of bus routes through bus lanes, improved facilities at hub bus interchanges and improvements to communication systems. These improvements will increase the reliability of services and provide better facilities that are intended to encourage a shift to bus use and reduce congestion. Planning and Funding Process 4.9 In order to ensure this public investment in the transport network is efficient, effective and publicly supported, there is an extensive transport planning process required by legislation. In addition there are also additional requirements set out by NZ Transport Agency on behalf of Government, as they contribute to this public investment through funding from the National Land Transport Fund (which is predominantly sourced from fuel excise duties, road user charges, and motor vehicle registration and licensing fees) _1.doc 7

8 page 8 of In summary the transport planning process for a transport project to achieve public funding in Christchurch is: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) inclusion in the Christchurch Transport Strategic Plan (Public consultation undertaken); put through a Business Case Process; included in the Christchurch LTP including that there be alignment with the Infrastructure Strategy (part of the LTP) (Public consultation undertaken); included in the Canterbury Regional Land Transport Plan (Public consultation undertaken); and included in the National Land Transport Programme A more detailed account of the transport planning process is: (i) The Christchurch Transport Strategic Plan is used to identify major network needs and projects. Network modelling of use, congestion and growth are used to identify more minor improvement projects that are reviewed and prioritised against the objectives of the CTSP. In this way a 10 year programme is developed for the draft LTP. A recent change to the Local Government Act 2002 has required Councils to also include a 30 year Infrastructure Strategy in their LTPs. (ii) In Sections 6, 7 and 8 of my 13 April 2015 Evidence in Chief for the Commercial and Industrial Proposals, I refer to the requirements placed upon local government by the Local Government Act 2002 in the provision of infrastructure and the preparation of a LTP and Infrastructure Strategy. (iii) In order for a transport project in Council's LTP to be eligible to receive a funding contribution from the National Land Transport Fund it must first be included in the Regional Land Transport Plan (RLTP), as required by the Land Transport Management Act The RLTP provides an indicative 10-year financial expenditure forecast of anticipated expenditure and funding sources within the region. Responsibility for preparing the RLTP _1.doc 8

9 page 9 of 32 lies with the Canterbury Regional Transport Committee (RTC). The RTC is a standing committee of the Regional Council, and includes representatives from the regional council, city and district councils, and Government transport agencies. Co-opted sector representatives from public health, environmental sustainability, economic, safety and iwi interests, are also are invited to participate in committee discussions, to provide a broad understanding of issues and implications. The RTC prepares the RLTP on behalf of the Regional Council and is approved by following a public consultation process. Public consultation can alter the original proposals. (iv) After inclusion in the RLTP, NZ Transport Agency is requiring that every transport project that is included in future RLTP needs to be supported by a business case subject to the better business process outlined by the New Zealand Treasury. Each business case must clearly identify the problem, benefits and strategic fit with the national and local priorities. If this case cannot be made, the likelihood of funding assistance is low. (v) NZ Transport Agency then assess all the transport projects proposed in the RLTPs across New Zealand, prioritising and programming them according to their strategic fit (such as alignment with the Government Policy Statement on Land Transport funding), and expected impacts and the available funding. The transport projects, that through this process are approved for funding from the National Land Transport Fund, are included in the National Land Transport Programme. Qualifying transport projects are typically funded at around 50% and so the NZ Transport Agency funding represents a significant proportion of the allocation to transport projects It can take a project a number of years to go through this process from concept stage to when funding is approved and the project can move into implementation _1.doc 9

10 page 10 of In determining its draft LTP, the Council considers operational expenditure, capital projects and capital programmes that have been proposed and categorised by staff. This draft plan is considered alongside comment and input from the public submissions on the draft LTP. In arriving at its decision, the Council has to balance operational and capital expenditure against the overall funding impact in terms of debt and rates to provide an affordable and prudent plan for the coming 10 years. This expenditure programme has to be kept within the bounds of its LTP funding profile. Hence there will always be a need to balance the competing demands from the community To prioritise, the capital programme projects are defined by their primary category being: (a) (b) (c) (d) Core - projects that are required to renew and replace existing assets once they are life expired and where it is more efficient to replace rather than repair. Growth - projects and programme funding to provide additional infrastructure and facility capacity to support growth as it eventuates across the District. Increased Levels of Service - projects that provide a better service in line with Community Outcomes. e.g. intersection improvements to reduce traffic congestion. New Services - projects that provide a new service. e.g. a new Public Transport hub The programme is prioritised in line with the order shown above with the core category being given the highest priority. Thus in arriving at the LTP the Council will generally prioritise the available funds to core and growth projects ahead of the other categories but will consider each project within a particular category on its individual merits and need In the draft LTP, $1.5 billion is allocated to providing core infrastructure capital works over the coming 10 years. Of this, over 50% ($802M) is specifically related to the transport category _1.doc 10

11 page 11 of FLEXIBILITY IN THE PROVISION OF TRANSPORT FACILITIES 5.1 One of the key aspects identified in the Infrastructure Strategy and discussed in my previous evidence was that the likely pattern of growth and consequent traffic demand is uncertain, and thus the Council will need to be agile to address the changing needs and demands on its infrastructure. This agility is partly provided by the ability to amend the LTP but is also provided through the six yearly mandatory review of the RLTP. 5.2 In Paragraph 9.1 of my 13 April 2015 Evidence in Chief for the Commercial and Industrial Proposals I refer to the fact that it would not be prudent or efficient to provide infrastructure networks that provide capacity for development to full District Plan densities. This includes the transport networks where local improvements should only be provided when they are needed. Mr David Falconer at paragraphs (with relevant evidence to 18.32) expresses the view that an Independent Traffic Assessment (ITA) is required to "accurately predict the effects on the transport network at the time of zoning". I agree with this view as it aligns with the flexibility provided in the LTP and RLTP processes. Once the demands of a particular proposal are known through an ITA then there is sufficient flexibility in the processes to amend minor works programmes to react to the need within the overall funding constraints of the LTP. 5.3 In the evidence of Mr Falconer at paragraph 19.6 he expresses a view that the key routes for the five main transport modes should not be shown in the prdp. I support this view since flexibility is needed. Transport patterns change and the RLTP can be changed in an integrated way to reflect the regional needs. The RLTP is a strategic document that has been prepared in association with the region's transport agencies to ensure consistency and alignment between adjoining road networks. In my view, this is the strategic document that should guide transport decisions rather than the prdp. Christopher Michael Edward Gregory 26 May _1.doc 11

12 page 12 of 32 Annexure A Commercial / Industrial Evidence dated 13 April _1.doc 12

13 page 13 of 32 BEFORE THE CHRISTCHURCH REPLACEMENT DISTRICT PLAN INDEPENDENT HEARINGS PANEL IN THE MATTER of the Resource Management Act 1991 and the Canterbury Earthquake (Christchurch Replacement District Plan) Order 2014 AND IN THE MATTER of the Commercial and Industrial (part) Proposals of the proposed Replacement District Plan STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE OF CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL EDWARD GREGORY ON BEHALF OF CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL INFRASTRUCTURE 13 APRIL 2015

14 page 14 of 32 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION SCOPE OF EVIDENCE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY STATE OF COUNCIL'S INFRASTRUCTURE, POST-EARTHQUAKE DAY TO DAY (NON-REBUILD) PROGRAM INTEGRATING THE LGA WITH THE RMA THE LONG TERM PLAN INFRASTRUCTURE STRATEGY CAPACITY Page 2

15 page 15 of INTRODUCTION 1.1 My full name is Christopher Michael Edward Gregory. I hold the position of Asset and Networks Unit Manager at the Christchurch City Council (Council). I have been in this position since October I hold a Bachelor of Science (Hons) qualification in Civil Engineering from the City University, London. I am a member of the Institute of Professional Engineers New Zealand and a Chartered Professional Engineer (CPEng). I am also a member of the Institute of Civil Engineers, and a Chartered Engineer (CEng) in the United Kingdom. 1.3 I have approximately 29 years professional experience since becoming a member of the Institute of Civil Engineers. Prior to my current role I was employed by the Council as the Infrastructure Assets Manager for 18 months. Preceding my time at the Council I was employed by GHD Ltd in various senior engineering management roles for seven years. Prior to that I provided engineering management services to Queenstown Lakes District Council as Branch Manager of MWH Ltd and then as Managing Director of Imtech Ltd for a total of 11 years. Before this I was the Operations Manager for Far North District Council responsible for its roading, solid waste and stormwater activities. These roles have provided me with over 26 years of senior management experience in managing horizontal infrastructure for local authorities in New Zealand. 1.4 I confirm that I have read the Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses contained in the Environment Court Practice Note 2014 and that I agree to comply with it. I confirm that I have considered all the material facts that I am aware of that might alter or detract from the opinions that I express, and that this evidence is within my area of expertise, except where I state that I am relying on the evidence of another person. 1.5 I have referred to the Christchurch City Council Infrastructure Strategy, March 2015 and the Local Government Act 2002 while preparing this brief of evidence Page 3

16 page 16 of SCOPE OF EVIDENCE 2.1 This is the second statement of evidence I have provided to the Hearings Panel. For the Commercial and Industrial (part) chapters, I have been asked by the Council to provide evidence on the following issues: (a) (b) (c) the current state of the Council's infrastructure; how the pattern of growth in Christchurch City affects the infrastructure costs for the community (including issues relating to the growth of commercial and industrial areas); and the way in which having greater certainty regarding the location, timing and form of future growth minimises the infrastructure costs on the Council and the community. 2.2 Although my evidence is provided in the context of the Commercial and Industrial Chapters, it is provided at a high-level, to enable a better understanding into the Council's obligations under the Local Government Act 2002 and how it plans for, provides and funds infrastructure to accommodate existing and new commercial and industrial development. 3. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3.1 The Stronger Christchurch Infrastructure Rebuilt Team (SCIRT) rebuild programme of $2.23 billion is approximately 70% complete and will be completed in December The SCIRT programme is for repair of damaged horizontal infrastructure and does not include any capacity increases to the networks. The SCIRT programme will not repair all damaged infrastructure and it is envisaged that works will need to be undertaken as part of the Council s day to day programme for a further 20 to 30 years. 3.2 Strategic plans developed since the earthquakes for transport have identified the strategic and arterial network improvements that are needed to support growth in the City. Key projects within these strategic plans are the state highway routes to be provided by NZ Transport Agency, namely Christchurch Southern, Western Corridor and Northern Arterial Motorways. The Council has provided for associated improvements to its roading Page 4

17 page 17 of 32 network in its draft Long Term Plan (LTP) along with a programme of local network improvements to provide capacity for growth. 3.3 The Council has envisaged the likely demands from commercial and industrial development in Stormwater Management Plans (STPs) and has provided for those in the programme of works included in the draft LTP. 3.4 The wastewater network is impaired by infiltration of stormwater during rainfall events. The SCIRT programme and an ongoing programme of works by the Council is planned to mitigate this issue over the coming years and has been included in the draft LTP. The development of commercial and industrial areas in Belfast, Hornby and Halswell has also been provided for in Council s infrastructure planning and funding in the draft LTP. 3.5 The Council is obliged under the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) to utilise existing infrastructure efficiently and provide for future infrastructure needs. This strategic planning is undertaken through its 10 year LTP which is a public process undertaken every three years. The capital programme within the LTP is supported by an Infrastructure Strategy that utilises infrastructure models and asset management plans to forecast infrastructure needs. The asset management plans consider efficient use of existing infrastructure to provide upgrades for growth in a timely manner based upon monitoring development through Council s infrastructure models. 3.6 Existing Council strategic plans, network models and draft LTP provisions are believed to address the anticipated growth in commercial and industrial activities. 4. STATE OF COUNCIL'S INFRASTRUCTURE, POST-EARTHQUAKE The SCIRT program 4.1 The SCIRT Alliance was established in September 2011 and is made up of three funding bodies (CERA, City Council and NZ Transport Agency) and five construction companies (Fulton Hogan, Downers, Fletchers, City Care Page 5

18 page 18 of 32 and McConnell Dowell). The purpose of this alliance is to repair and restore the earthquake damage to the horizontal infrastructure, specifically underground pipes and roads. Where appropriate SCIRT are also rebuilding above ground pumping assets for the City, and due to the alliance capability have been asked to construct several larger "business as usual" projects for the Council that have been brought forward in the Council s capital program to meet demand for growth in newly developing areas of the city and particularly in the south west of the city. 4.2 The scope of SCIRT s recovery work is defined by the Infrastructure Recovery Technical Standards and Guidelines (IRTSG) version 4, section 1.3. The primary objective for the infrastructure recovery has been identified as the following: "To return the infrastructure networks to a condition that meets the levels of service prior to the 4 September 2010 earthquake within the timing constraints of the rebuild." 4.3 A second objective is: "Where restoration work is undertaken, and where reasonably possible and economically viable, greater resilience is to be incorporated into the network." 4.4 The SCIRT rebuild work is due to be completed at the end of 2016 for a forecast cost at completion of approximately $2.23b (including overheads). This cost is shared by the funding partners. 4.5 The construction works are overall 70% completed to date by cost. Total expenditure to date by SCIRT is $1.56 billion. Table 1 below provides a breakdown of completion by asset type. The table is extracted from the current SCIRT operational monthly report (March 2015) Page 6

19 page 19 of 32 Table 1: SCIRT infrastructure rebuild progress as at 28 February 2015 Wastewate r Reticulation Lining Pump Station repair Pump Station new Lift stations K m km No. No. No. Network Total Current in Scope % of Network 30% 8% Estimated Constructio n Complete % Complete 57% 42% % 31 62% % % Water Supply Reticulation km % 51 61% Pump Stations & Reservoirs No % 20 69% Stormwater Reticulation km % 32 40% Pump Station No % 4 50% repair. Pump Station new No Roading Carriageway m % 927,103 57% Bridges/ No % % Culverts. Retaining Walls No. 1, % 96 49% 4.6 As repair work is in many cases not a full restoration of pre-earthquake condition, SCIRT s approach to repair of the four infrastructure areas varies according to the post-repair risk to public health and safety, and the long term asset management consequences has been as follows: (a) (b) Wastewater networks suffered the worst damage, and have the highest consequence of failure, both on public health and groundwater. These networks have received the highest level of intervention, and in most cases are repaired with resilient materials and design; Water supply was restored as a priority, and to a point of providing reliable service; Page 7

20 page 20 of 32 (c) (d) Stormwater repairs have been made to pipe networks only. Faults being repaired are generally those that that could be expected to worsen and threaten transport or private property. Not all faults are repaired; and Road repairs lag other services for sequencing reasons, but are more likely to involve patching rather than road rebuild, for reasons of cost. 4.7 I now consider the condition of the roading, stormwater and wastewater infrastructure in more detail. Condition of transport network 4.8 The condition of the transport network and its corresponding levels of service have been severely impacted by the earthquakes. Approximately 1,000 km (45%) of Christchurch's street network sustained significant damage in the earthquakes, requiring some 50,000 repairs. The initial phases of repair or replacement of this infrastructure is a priority for recovery and is expected to be completed by SCIRT in However, in many instances even once the network is reinstated, it will not be to the same standard as was typical prior to the earthquakes and it will be approximately 30 years before the whole network is returned to a reasonable level of service. 4.9 Costs of repairing the roads are shared with the Crown (under the Cost Sharing Agreement). SCIRT, on CCC and the Crown's behalf, has been repairing and rebuilding the roads damaged in the earthquakes. The reality is that a smooth road network cannot be delivered across the whole city all at once. As a result the repair and maintenance programme is being prioritised. A higher level of repair will be provided on main roads, which support community, commercial centres and key infrastructure. A lower level of repair (in other words, less smooth road surfaces) will be provided on roads with lower traffic volumes and speed limits. By prioritising a higher level of repair on main roads this supports and services commercial and industrial growth Page 8

21 page 21 of The Sumner Lyttelton Road is also crucial economically. Before the earthquakes the road was an alternative route to Lyttelton Port for vehicles too large to use the tunnel or carrying hazardous loads. With the road closed, these vehicles have had to use the longer route via Dyers Pass or Gebbies Pass. The only shorter option is for trucks moving hazardous goods to use the Tunnel, which necessities closing of the tunnel to other vehicles. The Sumner Lyttelton Road has been closed since 2011 due to risk of rock fall and significant damage to the road surface. The road is an economic and community lifeline and its imminent repair is an example of how SCIRT are prioritising critical road links. Work to repair the road is underway this year, with the road likely to reopen in It is expected to cost $40 to $60 million. Condition of Stormwater network 4.11 The land drainage network needs to be considered in two parts; the surface network of open waterways, which is excluded from SCIRT s scope, and the pipe network. The surface network, including rivers, streams, drains and secondary flow paths, is more compromised than the pipe network because it has been more affected by land settlement and grade changes. The current network is generally in a functional condition but is impacted primarily by settlement that results in elements of it not being able to operate as efficiently as it did prior to the earthquakes The pipe network will be restored to provide a level of service generally equivalent to what existed before the earthquakes; however asset condition will be reduced due to faults that are not repaired The non-piped stormwater assets are not included in the scope of the SCIRT repair programme. The SCIRT mandate is to repair earthquake damage and where possible (for no additional cost) provide greater resilience in the networks. SCIRT are not mandated to provide increased capacity. In eleven instances - where pipes are required to be replaced due to the extent of the damage, and where these pipes are known to be under sized - the Council has separately paid for an increase in pipe size to meet the known shortfall in capacity Page 9

22 page 22 of The Council s Land Drainage Recovery Programme will address the damage to the open waterways with the intention of returning the drainage level of service to what existed before the earthquakes. The programme will develop as investigations into earthquake effects progress. The programme is identified within the draft LTP) and spans the 10 year period totalling $315M. Funding requirements beyond this period will be assessed as part of future LTPs. Condition of wastewater network 4.15 The majority of the SCIRT programme has been focussed on repairing the wastewater network hence the network condition is improving and all critical damage will be repaired The Council envisages that its wastewater reticulation networks will continue to suffer from infiltration of ground water and stormwater after the completion of the SCIRT programme from damaged pipes and private laterals. Average flows (90 day average) through the wastewater treatment plant have been up to 70% greater post earthquake than preearthquakes, due almost entirely to a substantial increase in ground water infiltration into the network. This is a significant increase that takes up spare capacity in the network and has substantially increased the volume and frequency of wet weather overflows from the network. The increase in groundwater infiltration is directly related to groundwater levels so in wet periods these additional flows are high and drop off in long dry periods as the groundwater levels drop In April 2014 a new design guideline 1 for sewer repairs was adopted by the Council (for financial reasons) that reduced the number of pipe repairs and renewals that were to be done and will leave significant numbers of damaged pipes (pipes with cracks or dips) without repair as they are currently meeting the service needs of the community. This legacy will however reduce the effectiveness of the SCIRT rebuild in returning the wastewater network to pre earthquake levels in groundwater infiltration. The post-scirt network hydrodynamic model is being constructed now 1 Infrastructure Recovery and Technical Standards Guideline version Page 10

23 page 23 of 32 but can only be field calibrated as the SCIRT rebuild nears completion. This field calibration will take place over the winter of 2016 by which time most of the SCIRT wastewater work will be completed While the SCIRT rebuild will reduce the frequency and volume of wet weather overflows from the network, it is not expected to get back to preearthquake levels. Council is therefore required to seek a new wet weather overflow consent for the network. Currently there is a Compliance Strategy Agreement in place with Environment Canterbury, which is explained in the evidence of Ms O'Brien for the Residential hearing in more detail. 5. DAY TO DAY (NON-REBUILD) PROGRAM Roading 5.1 As mentioned above the transport network has been severely affected by earthquake damage through direct damage to the pavements, drainage and surfacing and by the impact of trench reinstatement for repairs to the pipe networks below. 5.2 The SCIRT programme referred to in 4.1 to 4.18 above is repairing the most significant of this damage, particularly on strategic and arterial routes. However, it is expected that re-instatement of the whole road network to a condition that is comparable to pre-earthquake levels is forecast to take a further 20 to 30 years at current levels of affordability. 5.3 The damage to the roading networks is primarily related to the condition of the road surfaces and the ability of the road drainage to function fully. There is not any significant reduction in the traffic capacity of any particular roads aside from the impact of the numerous road works sites around the city. The capacity impact through road works sites will be eliminated as the SCIRT programme comes to an end in However, the use patterns of the roading network have changed as businesses have relocated to suburban areas in the aftermath of the Page 11

24 page 24 of 32 earthquake and people have re-settled toward the west and north from the eastern suburbs. 5.5 Following the 2010 and 2011 sequence of earthquakes, the Council has worked closely with its strategic transport partners 2 in the Greater Christchurch area to revisit short, medium and long term planning for transport infrastructure. 5.6 Key pieces of work undertaken to both support recovery and then ensure transport networks are fit for purpose in supporting economic growth and recovery of Greater Christchurch over the next 30 years have included the Christchurch Transport Strategic Plan (CTSP) 2012, Greater Christchurch Transport Statement (GCTS) 2013 and Greater Christchurch Freight Study These documents have identified the highest priorities for transport infrastructure delivery over the coming decade and beyond, to ensure recovery support is maximised by our transport networks and ongoing growth is enabled. 5.7 Since the earthquakes, the Council's long term transport predictive models for the City and sub region have been re calibrated to reflect recovery patterns of employment and population growth as well as changed development patterns, with necessary adjustments to pre earthquake modelling undertaken at the time to support the Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy projections. This post earthquake transport modelling has been used to support re prioritised programmes of transport infrastructure delivery city wide and for the central city. 5.8 As the CTSP, GCTS and LURP 3 make clear, there is an over-riding need in transport infrastructure prioritisation to support those strategic routes most needed to support commercially important business and freight traffic, as well as providing alternatives to the private car for commuting and other journeys and programmes to improve the safety of the network. 2 3 The Strategic Transport Partners are the Urban Development Strategy signatories the Christchurch City Council, Selwyn and Wamakariri District Councils, Environment Canterbury and the NZ Transport Agency, as well as the Christchurch International Airport Limited, The Lyttelton Port of Christchurch, KiwiRail, Ministry of Transport, and CERA. Land Use Recovery Plan for example 3.2.4, and the 'Transport infrastructure programmes' box on page 15 and 4.4 on pages 31 to Page 12

25 page 25 of The largest commitments in the Council's post earthquake long term transport infrastructure planning have been directed towards supporting the NZ Transport Agency's plans to significantly improve the greater Christchurch state highway network such as Christchurch Southern Motorway 1 and 2 (CSM 1&2), SH1 Western Corridor improvements and the planned Northern Arterial Motorway extension This support is primarily a programme of associated improvements to the Council's arterial roading network to provide traffic capacity that harmonises with the NZ Transport Agency's state highway programme. The Council has provided for $91M of expenditure on such projects in its draft Long Term Plan and this includes $58.2M for the Council's extension of the NZ Transport Authority's Northern Arterial route to Cranford Street The Northern Arterial route is critical to enabling commercial and industrial development in the Northwood and Belfast areas by relieving traffic from Main North Road as discussed in the evidence of Mr John Falconer for the Council 4. The NZ Transport Agency are planning to commence construction of this road in late 2016 in a joint project with the Council that will see a new route constructed from SH1 at Waimakariri Bridge to Cranford Street over three years. As discussed by Mr Falconer this project is currently passing through the Notice of Requirement process In the South-West area the Council is currently constructing the Wigram Magdala bridge to provide for traffic from CSM 1&2 and this will be followed by the Annex/Birmingham/Wrights ($9.7M) project to create the strategic network links identified in the plans referred to in 5.6 above and provided for in the draft LTP As detailed above the Council's focus is providing for the strategic and arterial roading links required to sustain the roading network. However, it is recognised from modelling that there are localised improvements that will be required and the Council has set aside $141.6M in its draft Statement of Evidence of John Falconer on behalf of Christchurch City Council, Traffic, 13 April 2015, paragraph Page 13

26 page 26 of 32 LTP for a comprehensive programme of these works to ensure the road network can accommodate the increased traffic from growth as it occurs. Stormwater and Wastewater 5.14 In my evidence for Chapter 14 Residential, I outlined how the Council plans to provide infrastructure to support the capacity demands from growth and I refer back to that evidence. This is generally by way of modelling and specific plans that estimate where the growth is likely to occur based upon population and land use projections. These models and plans then identify any constraints and are used to develop programmes of work that inform the LTP, but also achieve the LGA requirements for efficient and effective use of infrastructure In the case of stormwater, reliance is placed upon Stormwater Management Plans (SMP) for the various catchments to identify those programmes of work. In the draft LTP $134.3M has been allocated for the implementation of projects identified in those SMPs. The majority of this funding is for projects in the Styx, Avon and South-West areas In his evidence Mr Norton states at paragraph 3.5 that "sufficient provision has been made in the planning of stormwater systems to be certain that, on a catchment basis, the commercial and industrial developments can be accommodated subject to the confirmation that site specific issues meet the consent requirements". Based upon the provision of specific funding for implementation of SMP's in the draft LTP, I agree with Mr Norton. Wastewater 5.17 The Council envisages that its wastewater reticulation networks will continue to suffer from infiltration of ground water and stormwater after the completion of the SCIRT programme in 2016, from damaged pipes and private laterals Page 14

27 page 27 of This infiltration impairs the ability of the wastewater networks to provide full capacity for servicing of residential, commercial and industrial needs. The Council strategy is to prioritise repair of this infiltration based upon need and to achieve the most efficient use of the funds available. The first priority is to mitigate the overflows that are occurring during rainfall. The second priority is to maximise the remaining life of the wastewater assets. In designing these repairs and replacements any capacity required for the growth envisaged in the prdp will be provided for in the works Council utilises computer models to analyse and assess the capacity of its core horizontal infrastructure assets, being roading, wastewater, water supply and stormwater. The wastewater model has been used to provide a programme of works to provide for the anticipated growth in its draft LTP. This programme is a mix of budgets for identified large projects and a more generic allowance ($36.7M) for smaller projects that arise as development occurs In her evidence Ms O'Brien states that the Council has plans in place to provide sufficient capacity for the Belfast, Hornby and Halswell commercial and industrial growth areas. 5 The provision of funds in the draft LTP as referred to in paragraph 7.6 below support this statement. 6. INTEGRATING THE LGA WITH THE RMA 6.1 The LGA provides the framework for how local governments must operate and provides for strategic planning in relation to the Long Term Plan. Part 2 of the LGA outlines the purpose of local government which broadly speaking includes carrying out its business in a democratic and cost effective way to meet the current and future needs of communities for good quality local infrastructure. 6.2 Clause 3(1) of Schedule 10 of the LGA covers capital expenditure and sets out the Council s obligations for its LTP to demonstrate how it has budgeted for additional demand for services, increased levels of service and asset replacement. Clause 9 sets out the requirement for financial and 5 Evidence of Ms Bridget O'Brien, 13 April 2015, paragraphs and Page 15

28 page 28 of 32 infrastructure strategies to be included in its LTP (and the contents for those strategies are set out in sections 101A and 101B of the LGA respectively). Sections 100 and 101 of the LGA relate to sustainable and prudent financial management. For the Council this means efficiently providing the levels of service demanded / expected by the community while maintaining sustainable debt levels and affordable rates for residents and business. 6.3 Ultimately therefore the LGA sets out the framework for the Council s strategic planning, the result of which is the LTP. 6.4 Given that the Council has an obligation under the LGA to strategically manage the City s growth, it is necessary for funding purposes to be clear about the location, size and timing of that growth. 6.5 The prdp areas for commercial and industrial activity align with various planning documents such as the Urban Development Strategy (UDS) and more recently Chapter 6 of the Regional Policy Statement. Hence, Council s strategic planning for infrastructure to service commercial and industrial areas has been in place for a number of years, but has required refinement given the significant effect the earthquakes had on the horizontal infrastructure. The draft LTP provides for this growth in these areas in a way that meets the obligations of the LGA. 7. THE LONG TERM PLAN 7.1 The Council s draft LTP sets out a planned capital expenditure of around $4.435 billion. The scale of this amount illustrates the importance to the Council of an integrated planning approach that balances community needs with financial sustainability. 7.2 The Council is required by the provisions of the LGA to provide and fund infrastructure in a planned way and new infrastructure provision cannot be allocated funding without the Council following the LGA s processes, particularly the process relating to the preparation of a Long Term Plan Page 16

29 page 29 of A LTP is a plan which, among other things, describes the activities, work streams and intended community outcomes for a period of 10 years or longer. It is a strategic planning document. LTPs are updated every three years. There are a number of requirements in the LGA about what an LTP must contain and how it is prepared. 7.4 The capital works programme adopted by the Council is informed by the levels of service it resolves to provide to the community. This means balancing the cost and timing of new and replacement assets required to deliver those services with the affordability of those services and assets. Affordability is heavily influenced by how efficiently the services and assets can be delivered over the long term. 7.5 The capital programme is developed from asset management plans that test the efficiency of the programme over a 30 year horizon. The LTP process from this point then comprises the following steps: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) the programme is referred to senior Council managers to develop a prioritised capital works programme; the Chief Executive and Executive Leadership Team review the capital programme; the Chief Executive presents the proposed capital programme to elected members; elected members deliberate on the capital programme, make any changes required and adopt a draft LTP, Financial Strategy, Infrastructure Strategy and Consultation Document; the Consultation Document and supporting documents are released to public consultation for interested parties to make submissions; and the Council deliberate on submissions, make amendments if required, and adopt the LTP. 7.6 In its current draft LTP, the Council has provided a day to day capital programme of $792M for roading, $359M for wastewater and $196M for stormwater. This excludes provision for the capital rebuilds arising from the earthquakes Page 17

30 page 30 of The Council is required by the LGA to plan for growth and the resulting LTP is ultimately a provision for the anticipated growth at the time of LTP development. Variation to the growth projects identified in an LTP or the quantum of funding provided for growth is provided for in the three yearly review, update and adoption of the LTP for the coming 10 years. There is also the ability, through an Annual Plan process, to amend the LTP for significant changes should they be required. 8. INFRASTRUCTURE STRATEGY 8.1 Amendments to the LGA in August 2014 also now require the Council to prepare a 30 year Infrastructure Strategy for its core horizontal infrastructure. The Council has undertaken this and its Infrastructure Strategy is a supporting document to the current draft LTP. 8.2 As I set out in my evidence for the Residential Chapter, the Infrastructure Strategy is required to identify emerging issues for the Council and it does so in Section 2.3 where it identifies the earthquake legacy and urban development as key issues to be addressed. In particular under urban development it states: a significant amount of urban development is proposed for Christchurch. This includes accelerated greenfield development (previously undeveloped) and intensification around existing commercial centres in the short term. In many cases, infrastructure will need to be upgraded or expanded to support this growth. The Land Use Recovery Plan (LURP) outlines this expected development, however Council needs to be agile to address the changing needs as the recovery of the City occurs at accelerated or decelerated levels. Council also needs to provide infrastructure to support this growth, and it is generally more expensive to provide infrastructure for greenfield areas than for intensification within the city. 8.3 The current networks have largely been installed since the 1950s as Christchurch has grown. These networks were sized to provide for envisaged growth at the time of installation rather than the current Page 18