Infrastructure Strategy for Amberley Township

Infrastructure Strategy for Amberley Township
Part I. Introduction
1.1 The infrastructure strategy for Amberley Township provides a brief outline of how
growth in the township will be serviced.
The strategy includes;
An outline of the Council’s policies for planning, allocating and funding
infrastructure; and
A strategy for each service: water, stormwater, sewerage, roading, cycleways &
walkways; and reserves.
1.2 Each strategy outlines:
(i) What level of service shall be provided;
(ii) What works will be required, when to achieve or maintain this level of service;
(iii) How these works will be funded; and
(iv) What developers will be required to do and what the Council will do.
1.3 The infrastructure strategy serves as a basic guideline for the Council,
developers and the community. It does not replace the Council’s Asset
Management Plans and should not be used as a substitute for discussions with
Council staff in planning subdivisions or developments in Amberley Township.
Part 2. Basic Policies for Planning, Allocating & Funding Infrastructure
in Amberley Township
2.1
Ownership of Infrastructure
2.1.1
As a first preference, all infrastructure and amenities which serve Amberley Township
shall be owned and managed by the Council on behalf of the community.
2.1.2
The Council shall consider allowing subdivision or development which is served by
privately owned infrastructure or amenities:
- As an interim measure, when capacity in the public infrastructure is unavailable ; or
- If the provision of public infrastructure is deemed by the Council as being inefficient
or impractical, in a particular case.
2.1.3
When allowing privately owned infrastructure (as an interim measure or permanently),
the Council must be satisfied with the provisions for funding, maintenance and repair
of the private system for its anticipated duration, and, if applicable, the arrangements
for the development to become served by a public system when one becomes
available.
Explanation
In Amberley Township most infrastructure and amenities are owned and managed by the
Council on behalf of the community. This arrangement is the Council’s preferred option for
servicing the township, as it grows. However, there are instances when public investment in
such infrastructure may be impractical for several reasons. It may simply be too costly and
have to great an impact on rates; the chances of the Council recouping the investment
through development over time may be too small to justify the investment; or it may be too
costly to maintain the infrastructure for the number of people it serves.
2.2
Growth Planned for at Amberley
2.2.1
Where practical, Council will plan works and upgrades to infrastructure capacity
incrementally; starting with works to serve the additional units of demand identified in
the LTCCP for the period 2006-2026.
2.2.2
The Council shall monitor the rate at which the township grows and capacity is taken
up, to determine when planning for additional capacity should start.
2.2.3
Where it is impractical or inefficient to plan infrastructure works in incremental steps,
the Council shall require infrastructure works or upgrades to serve the entire area
which has been zoned for residential or business development.
Explanation
The LTCCP predicts growth of around 457 households (units of demand) for Amberley
Township in the 20-year period from 2006-2026. However, substantially more land may be
requested for rezoning in submissions on the Amberley plan change. Therefore, the Council
has to manage the possibility of township growth being higher than predicted over that period
and being able to service land which is rezoned for development; while ensuring that the
Council does not commit ratepayers funds to investment in infrastructure capacity which is not
needed during that period.
The Council has decided to manage this situation with a two-pronged approach. Where the
infrastructure upgrades allow, they will be undertaken incrementally as growth occurs, starting
with the growth projections identified in the Council’s LTCCP (457 households). Where
incremental upgrades are inappropriate, then the Council will require upgrades to for
development, in each case. This policy has funding implications for developers which are
covered in section 4, below.
2.3
Allocating Capacity in Infrastructure
2.3.1
Capacity in public, reticulated water supply, sewerage and stormwater treatment and
disposal systems serving Amberley Township, shall be allocated to any residential or
business development at the time that the subdivision or land use consent is
approved (whichever is applied for first).
2.3.2
Such capacity shall be deemed allocated from the time the subdivision or land use
consent is approved; and shall remain allocated unless the consent lapses under
section 125 of the RMA, is cancelled under section 126 of the RMA, or is surrendered
under section 138 of the RMA.
2.3.3
The total capacity in any infrastructure which is allocated to any residential or
business development shall be limited, until such time as the capacity is paid for.
2.3.4
All development or financial contributions shall be paid when stipulated on the
conditions of consent, and there shall be no bonding of contributions.
Explanation
The district plan rules require the Council to assess whether water supply, sewerage and
stormwater treatment and disposal facilities are available to serve the proposed development
when the subdivision or land use consent is applied for. Therefore, capacity in this
infrastructure needs to be allocated to the development at the time the resource consent is
approved. There is a considerable time lag from the consent approval to when development
contributions must be paid or the consent lapses under the RMA 1991: eight years for a
subdivision consent and five years for a land use consent (unless a longer period is granted).
To avoid large amounts of capacity in infrastructure being allocated to developments but
costs not recouped, the policy requires developments to occur in stages; with the
infrastructure capacity to serve each stage being paid before the next stage is approved.
These policies do not stop stages being applied for and approved in quick succession, as
long as an contributions are paid.
2.4
Funding Works to infrastructure and Amenities
Cost-Bearing – Who Pays?
2.4.1 The costs of any works to infrastructure or amenities, which are required as a result
of the growth of Amberley Township, shall be funded by that growth, irrespective of
whether the works provide a benefit to existing residents.
2.4.2
The costs of any works required to infrastructure or amenities to address existing
problems shall be borne by the community, through rates.
2.4.3
The Council retains its discretion to consider ratepayer contributions to specific items,
in accordance with its LTCCP and Annual Plan.
Funding Tools
2.4.4. Development contributions levied under the LGA 2002 is the Council’s first preferred
mechanism to fund works to infrastructure and amenities required to serve the growth
of Amberley Township; where it is affordable and the time period to recoup costs is
acceptable.
2.4.5
Any funding of works to infrastructure or amenities using development contributions
shall be calculated over the projected units of demand, as set out in LTCCP.
2.4.6
Financial contributions levied under the RMA shall be used to fund works to
infrastructure and amenities where:
(i) The Council requires developers to fund the capital costs of the works upfront; or
(ii) The units of demand being catered for by the works are greater than the growth
projections contained in the LTCCP.
2.4.7
Where developers are required to fund the capital cost of works to infrastructure or
amenities upfront, and the capacity provided may be used by other developers, the
Council shall consider facilitating a cost-sharing regime between developers, where
Council deems it practical to do so.
Explanation
Generally, the Council will fund the capital costs of works to infrastructure and amenities
which are necessary to serve the level of growth anticipated in the LTCCP for 2006-2026
(with costs recouped through development contributions). Works which are required to serve
population growth over and above this amount, or where the capital costs of infrastructure or
amenities are deemed unaffordable for the Council to fund, shall be funded by developers
through financial contributions. Where other developers can use or benefit from works to
infrastructure or amenities, the Council will consider facilitating a cost-sharing regime between
developers.
Road Strategy for Amberley Township
Introduction
This strategy identifies the long term planning required for Amberley’s road network
to cater for growth and how this network will be funded and paid for.
Objectives
3. To enhance our essential infrastructure, the Hurunui needs to have:
• A safe, quality roading network that is well maintained (LTCCP)
4. Council will contribute to the outcome by:
• Routinely assessing which roads, bridges and footpaths need upgrading,
sealing and building in order to prevent accidents and link people, places
and businesses through an effective roading system, while representing
best value for money. (LTCCP).
5. To ensure that an implementation plan and timetable for works required is
incorporated into Council’s Long Term Strategic Planning.
Strategic Principles
The following strategic principles have been developed to support the integrated
planning of Amberley’s road network:
8. That the management of Amberley’s road network is a key responsibility of
the Council.
9. That ongoing liaison with Transit New Zealand will be required to ensure
that State Highway 1 continues to perform its national, regional and local
functions.
10. That developers install and pay for all road development within their
subdivision, and any upgrades to the existing road network required as a
result of their development. (Once the subdivision/development is complete
the road network will generally vest in Council)
11. That an agreed indicative road network is generally followed by developers.
12. That the works needed to upgrade intersections be based on the expected
demand from the relevant subdivision or development, and be timed to
coincide with the development occurring.
Network Description
The road network in Amberley is probably the most obvious and “simple” of
Amberley’s network infrastructure. It is dominated by State Highway 1 passing northsouth through the centre of Amberley, with numerous secondary roads linking areas
to the east and west. The residential and commercial areas are also served by
numerous minor roads. There has been recent works on the State Highway and
around intersections with the State Highway to try to make “local” traffic and
pedestrian movements safer by separating them from State Highway “through” traffic.
A full review of the main street functions of the State Highway, integration with the
local road network and intersection treatments is to be scheduled for the mediumterm.
The road network for local and district travel is largely in place. Growth will place
some increased demands on the existing network. However, the major implication of
growth is a need for additional roads in new development areas to serve the
development and improvements to intersections with the existing network.
Road Upgrades and Method of Funding
The attached indicative roading map shows the Council’s proposed roading layout for
Amberley. As land is rezoned and subdivided or developed a road network generally
in accordance with that shown on the map will be required to be developed. This will
include:
1) All subdivisions or developments shall provide link strips to adjoining land to
enable the road network to continue.
2) All roads shown on the indicative roading strategy as ‘through roads’ shall be
formed as such (not cul-de-sacs)
3) The new loop road shall be formed to the standard of Collector Road in
accordance with Appendix A5.1 of the district plan.
4) Any rezoning or subdivision proposal which gains access via an existing culde-sac or local road shall include an assessment of the stage in the
development when any alternative access route(s) shall be provided in
accordance with the roading strategy; and the number of vehicle movements
and time for which additional traffic will be channelled through the existing
road network.
5) The formation of the Loop Road link with SH1, shall be the last connection in
the Loop Road formation south of Amberley Beach Road.
The physical works required and estimated costs for these upgrades are:
Intersection 1 – State Highway 1/Grays Road –right turn bay
Minor pavement widening and remarking (this intersection is to serve the possible
expanded industrial area to the south-west of Amberley.
• estimated capital cost of $15,000
• funding mechanism –
o Financial Contributions at the time of development.
Intersection 2 – State Highway 1/New Loop Road – right turn bay
Pavement widening and remarking
• estimated capital cost of $80,000
• funding mechanism – financial contribution on development of subject land
• timing – at time of development of new road
Intersection 3 – State Highway 1/Amberley Beach Road – pavement remarking
Improvement of existing intersection by remarking
• estimated capital cost of $15,000
• funding mechanism – Amberley rates (road maintenance)
Intersection 4 – Amberley Beach Road/New Loop Road – roundabout
Construction of a new roundabout when the new loop road is constructed
• estimated capital cost of $265,000
• funding mechanism –financial contributions (with a cost sharing option
available between land on the north and south east sides of Amberley Beach
Road.)
• timing –Round-about to be built at the time loop road is formed on both sides
of Amberley Beach Road.
Intersection 5 – Douglas Road/Willowside Place – right turn bay
Pavement widening and remarking
• estimated capital cost of $20,000
•
•
funding mechanism – financial contribution on development of subject land
timing – at time of development of new road
New Service Road – Eastern Side – Between Courage Road and Amberley
Beach Road
Construction of a new service road to enhance access to commercial areas on the
east side of the State Highway
• New road – estimated capital cost of $475,000, land (1.8ha) of approximately
$375,000, designation and engineering of approximately $75,000,
contingency (15%) $139,000 = total of $1,063,000
• funding mechanism – financial contribution on development of subject land
• timing – at time of development of each land area
• NB – will require active management by Council to ensure connectivity
achieved
Summary
A summary of all growth related work for the Amberley road network is shown in the
table below:
Work1
State Highway
1/New Loop
Road
State Highway
1/Amberley
Beach Road
Amberley Beach
Road/New Loop
Road
Douglas
Road/Willowside
Place
New Service
Road – Eastern
Side – Between
Courage Road
and Amberley
Beach Road
Description
Right turn bay - pavement
widening and remarking
Funding
Financial
Contribution
Timing
At time of
development
Cost2
$80,000
Improvement of existing
intersection by remarking
Rates
At time of
development
$15,000
Construction of a new
roundabout when the new loop
road is constructed
Pavement widening and
remarking
Financial
Contributions
At time of
development
$265,000
Financial
Contributions
At time of
development
$20,000
Construction of a new service
road to enhance access to
commercial areas on the east
side of the State Highway
Financial
Contributions
At time of
development
1,063,000
All costs and values in this strategy are detailed in 2008 dollars. They do not include
costs for land acquisition or debt-funding, or GST. Readers should note that financial
contribution of land may also be required under the Council’s financial contribution
rule (C2.2.1(a)) for the provision of walkway and cycleway links within subdivisions.
2
Indicative Roading Plan
No Window
LINZ Parcel data supplied under Licence from
Critchlow Associates Ltd.
Disclaimer Note
The information displayed on the map has been taken from Hurunui District
Council's databases and maps.
It is made available in good faith but its accuracy or completeness is not
guaranteed.
If the information is relied on in support of a resource consent it should be verified
independently.
December 2007