Feedback Report – Technical Report Peer
Review
Title:
Review of LPC Information – Economics
From:
Simon Harris
To:
Bianca Sullivan – Technical Lead
Date:
19 November 2014
1.
Overview of LPC Information
The economics report was prepared by Mike Copeland of Brown Copeland
and Co Ltd. Mr Copeland is an eminent economist with many years of
experience in the assessment of projects of this type. He is qualified to
undertake this assessment.
The report sets out to define the importance of the port for the economy of
Canterbury, West Coast, Christchurch and Lyttelton. It discusses the volumes
and values of imports and exports, and places these in the context of the South
Island and NZ. It then discusses trends in container ship and cruise ships and the
potential implications for LPC. These discussions are used to show the status of
Lyttelton Port as the most significant port in the South Island and its likely
increasing importance as a hub for transport for all regions in the South Island.
Paragraph 113 onward discusses the importance of the PRP in providing for an
envelope of development activities. It argues that the proposed activities are
necessary to meet the needs of existing and future customers in an efficient
manner. It states that suboptimal development will reduce economic benefits
for businesses and customers. It argues that business cases will need to be
developed for each project on a case by case basis, and therefore it is not
possible to present this information at this stage. The section also provides
information from a recent report detailing the costs of the port not becoming
big ship capable, or the development being delayed by five years as a result of
consenting each project individually.
Paragraph 137 onward describes the effects of the activities on the Lyttelton
township, including increased economic activity and trade diversion effects. .
The report provides a reasonably comprehensive assessment of the effects of
the development and its importance in a wider context.
2.
The Existing Environment
The discussion does not cover any non-market economic impacts such as those
associated with recreational activities, environmental values, and aesthetic
values. This omission is minor because the impacts are discussed elsewhere
and any non-market valuations are likely to be difficult to determine and of
limited value.
There are potentially some economic changes in recreational yacht
maintenance, although these are difficult to define as the nature of the
shoreside Dampier Bay development is uncertain.
Information acceptance review - Economics - final 20141127 P061901
30/03/2015
|1
Feedback Report – Technical Report Peer
Review
3.
Report Methodology
The report uses descriptive statistics, input-output (multiplier) analysis, and costbenefit analysis. This is appropriate, although it is possible that cost effectiveness
analysis would also be required (see below)
4.
The Key Effects
TBC in main review.
5.
The Proposed Mitigation
The major proposed mitigation is in relation to the trade diversion effects for the
Lyttelton township in relation to Dampier Bay development. This is largely based
on the development of a development plan, and restrictions on maximum
public floor space and restrictions on some activities (restaurant/café). The final
assessment of any trade effects cannot be undertaken until the likely form and
scale of development is clearer.
6.
Overall comments, including additional information required
The provisional assessment is that the major effects are covered. The full review
is still to be completed.
7.
Additional Information Required
The major issue for in relation to the economic assessment is the cost
effectiveness assessment. I understand that a Section 32 report is not required,
but the CERA strategy under which this sits makes a number of references to
cost effective development of infrastructure. The economic report and main
report largely assert that the proposed approach is the only viable means of
meeting the development needs of the port. While it seems probable that this is
true, there is no information in the application that allows an assessment of this
assertion.
Because this is an unfamiliar planning environment for me, I am unable to
determine whether this is a required item. However for me as an economist I
would regard it as an important item in understanding the desirability of the PRP
overall. The information does not need to be in the form of a detailed business
case, but for my purposes would be fulfilled in the first case by a list for each
major item showing potential alternatives and the reasons why they are not
viable or are more expensive. This would provide assurance that there has
been a comprehensive assessment of potential development approaches and
not merely justification of a preferred strategy.
Information acceptance review - Economics - final 20141127 P061901
30/03/2015
|2