At the close of
the agenda no apologies had been received.
2 Declaration of Interest
Members are
reminded of the need to be vigilant to stand aside from decision making when a
conflict arises between their role as a member and any private or other
external interest they might have.
3 Confirmation of Minutes
|
That the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee:
a)
confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting,
held on Thursday, 6 March 2014, including the
confidential section, as a true and correct record.
|
4 Petitions
At the close of
the agenda no requests to present petitions had been received.
5 Public Input
Standing Order
3.21 provides for Public Input. Applications to speak must be made to the
Committee Secretary, in writing, no later than two (2) working days
prior to the meeting and must include the subject matter. The meeting
Chairperson has the discretion to decline any application that does not meet
the requirements of Standing Orders. A maximum of thirty (30) minutes
is allocated to the period for public input with five (5) minutes
speaking time for each speaker.
At the close of
the agenda no requests for public input had been received.
6 Local Board Input
Standing Order
3.22 provides for Local Board Input. The Chairperson (or nominee of that
Chairperson) is entitled to speak for up to five (5) minutes during this
time. The Chairperson of the Local Board (or nominee of that Chairperson)
shall wherever practical, give two (2) days notice of their wish to
speak. The meeting Chairperson has the discretion to decline any application
that does not meet the requirements of Standing Orders.
This right is
in addition to the right under Standing Order 3.9.14 to speak to matters on the
agenda.
At the close of
the agenda no requests for local board input had been received.
7 Extraordinary Business
Section 46A(7)
of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (as amended)
states:
“An item that is
not on the agenda for a meeting may be dealt with at that meeting if-
(a) The local authority by resolution so decides; and
(b) The presiding member explains at the meeting, at a time
when it is open to the public,-
(i) The
reason why the item is not on the agenda; and
(ii) The reason why the discussion of the item cannot be
delayed until a subsequent meeting.”
Section 46A(7A)
of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (as amended)
states:
“Where an item
is not on the agenda for a meeting,-
(a) That item may be discussed at that meeting if-
(i) That item is a minor matter relating to the general business
of the local authority; and
(ii) the presiding member explains at the beginning of the
meeting, at a time when it is open to the public, that the item will be
discussed at the meeting; but
(b) no resolution, decision or recommendation may be made in
respect of that item except to refer that item to a subsequent meeting of the
local authority for further discussion.”
8 Notices of Motion
At the close of
the agenda no requests for notices of motion had been received.
|
Regional
Strategy and Policy Committee
03 April 2014
|
|
Obtain
approval for Auckland Council’s submission on the Buildings (Earthquake Prone
Building) Amendment Bill
File No.:
CP2014/04090
Purpose
1. This report
summarises the Auckland Council proposed submission to the Local Government and
Environment Committee on the Building (Earthquake-Prone Buildings) Amendment
Bill 2013. The government has introduced legislation into Parliament to change
the system for managing earthquake prone buildings. The changes follow
recommendations by the Canterbury Earthquakes Royal Commission and a
comprehensive review [including consultation] by the Ministry of Business
Innovation and Employment (MBIE).
Executive
Summary
2. The Building
(Earthquake-Prone Buildings) Amendment Bill 2013 has passed its first reading
and has been referred to the Local Government and Environment Select Committee.
The Bill is open for public written submissions up to Thursday 17 April 2014.
3. The Bill itself
broadly reflects recommendations in Volume 4 (Earthquake-Prone Buildings) of the
Canterbury Earthquakes Royal Commission. It also responds to feedback MBIE
received through the public consultation process it conducted in 2013 on those
recommendations.
4. We strongly
support this initiative by Central Government. Great work has been done within
a short period of time which we believe will have a positive effect on the
integrity of buildings and enhance the safety of people using these buildings.
5. Our proposed
submission reflects support for many of the key amendments in the proposal.
However, we recommend that further research is conducted to assure Aucklanders
that any investment in seismic upgrading is warranted in the context of
Auckland’s seismicity projections. We also recognise that Auckland may be
impacted by other natural events such as tsunami and volcanoes and we would
like to see a system that embodies a broader consideration of potential sources
of risk to our building stock.
6. We continue to
advocate for a balance to be achieved between risk and investment to ensure
that, as a society, we are obtaining the most practicable outcomes for our
community in terms of safety enhancement, cost minimisation, and heritage
preservation.
7. The proposed
submission document is still being finalised and will be tabled at the committee
meeting. The substantive content of the submission document is contained
within this report.
|
Recommendation/s
That the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee:
a) approve the
document prepared for submission to the Local Government and Environment Committee
on the Building (Earthquake-Prone Buildings) Amendment Bill 2013
b) request that
officers of Auckland Council’s Building Control Department be granted
approval to represent Auckland Council before the select committee and make
an oral presentation on the submission
c) authorise the Civil Defence and Emergency Management Director to
represent council's views on comparative risk with the select committee.
|
Discussion
8. Since the
current provisions relating to seismic upgrading of buildings were introduced
in the Building Act 2004, there has been on-going discussion at national and
local level around how the system might be further improved. Issues associated
with regional inconsistency, limited powers to address issues and a perceived
lack of appropriate implementation tools have formed the crux of many of these
discussions.
9. Following the
earthquake events of 2010-2011 in Christchurch, and the subsequent Royal
Commission review, there has been the opportunity and the impetus to
comprehensively address these problem areas. While the Royal Commission’s final
report covered a wide range of topics related to the events in Canterbury,
Volume 4 in particular focused on Earthquake-Prone Buildings and the policies
that related to their identification and management.
10. Volume 4 formed
the basis for MBIE’s stakeholder consultation that led to the development of
the present amendment bill. Auckland Council’s submissions on both the Royal
Commission review and the MBIE consultation were well received, and the changes
that resulted have reflected our input to date. The specific nature of our
submission is focused mostly on requesting clarity on some of the points in the
proposed Amendment Bill.
11. While developing
our submission we took into account the following factors:
· Conclusions drawn from
hazard research by GNS Science are that the seismic risk to Auckland is of a
significantly low level as to warrant restraint when considering the extent of
building strengthening required in the region. The research by GNS Science (February
2014) includes estimated damage and casualties from earthquakes affecting
Auckland. The reports will be made available to the select committee if
requested.
· Implementation of a
level of strengthening should reasonably take into account all available
scientific knowledge to ensure a regionally appropriate approach that is
economically and socially justifiable.
· The risk of earthquakes
to Auckland ought to be viewed in comparison to other potential natural
disasters of greater hazard to the region, such as tornados, landslides,
volcanoes and tsunamis.
12. We are also
aware that our submission focusses on an Auckland perspective and that our
environmental, and economic factors are different to other parts of the country
i.e. what is practical for Auckland, might be impractical for others. Our view
is that the final outcome of the legislative change should be a system that
will function well, not only for the likes of Auckland and other metropolitan
centres, but for smaller rural centres as well.
13. The key
amendments proposed in the Bill include:
· Assessments and
timeframes - Requiring territorial authorities to
assess all commercial and large residential buildings in their jurisdiction
within 5 years of the legislation being passed, using a methodology to be
specified by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment. Reduction of
the period to upgrade an earthquake prone building to a nationally consistent
15 years.
· National database - The creation of a unified national database for recording
building seismic performance data including for example, building age,
structure, and performance ratings.
· Level of
strengthening - Clarification that an earthquake
prone building or an earthquake prone component of a building is anything less
than 34 per cent of the New Building Standard (NBS.)
· National policy – the Bill provides for a greater role for central government to
monitor performance of territorial authorities in enacting the requirements of
this legislation, and the increased provision of direction and guidance from
central government.
· Heritage exemptions – Category 1 Historic Places may be granted an additional 10 years
for necessary strengthening work to be completed.
· Priorities – Certain classes of building yet to be defined in regulations will
be recognised as a priority for upgrading and the timeframes for their
upgrading reduced to reflect the risk associated with a failure of such a
building.
· Low-risk exemptions – Certain classes of building that may be seen to represent a low
risk to occupants may be exempted from the requirement to strengthen to the
national standard.
· Accessibility and
fire safety exemptions – territorial authorities
(that are Building Consent Authorities) are to be granted the ability to issue
building consents for the specific seismic strengthening of earthquake-prone
buildings without requiring other upgrades (for access and facilities for
people with disabilities and for means of escape from fire).
14. Key elements of
our submission, in response to these amendments, and developed in consultation
with key stakeholders, are summarised as:
· Assessments and
timeframes – We support the intended 5 and 15-year
timeframes respectively for assessment and completion of retrofitting. However,
we encourage central government to strongly consider the implementation of
support mechanisms to assist building owners.
· National database – We agree that a national database would provide benefit through
efficiency and scale.
· Level of
strengthening – Clear technical guidance based on
up-to-date research is required in regard to the application of a percentage-based
threshold for seismic upgrading to regions of low seismic risk. Research from
GNS Science indicates that in Auckland there will be little benefit to the
community in upgrading buildings to 34 per cent NBS. The cost of upgrading
affected building stock in Auckland would be substantial.
We prefer a focus on
reducing the risk of building features falling from the building. Such an
event, involving verandas, parapets, facades and heavy ornaments, could be
triggered by factors that are non-seismic in nature. Buildings that may have an
NBS rating may still need attention to such features which the proposed
approach could fail to address.
· National policy – we support for a national approach as long as it reflects the
varying risk across the country and the provision for local discretion to be
applied.
· Heritage
consideration – Heritage preservation needs to be
maintained and equally balanced with safety considerations and cost
implications. There needs to be further clarity around what can be considered
heritage for the purposes of this Bill, as at present buildings deemed
such under a unitary or district plan do not appear to be covered.
· Processing
timeframes – Auckland Council does not support the
establishment of an imposed timeframe (20 working days) for regulatory staff to
process seismic performance reports to a register.
· Placarding
requirements – Auckland Council does not support
the requirement to place placards on any buildings deemed earthquake-prone. The
exceptions to this is where the timeframe for compliance with an EPB notice has
expired, or where the territorial authority is responsible for a region of high
seismic risk and the placarding approach has been approved through a local
consultative process.
· Notification
requirements – Presently the issuing of any
official notice under Section 124 of the Building Act requires copies of the
notice to be sent to any parties with an interest in the site. This has to date
been found to be onerous to carry out on a large scale, especially in regard to
multi-tenanted body corporate type structures, and we do not support this
approach to notification. We prefer an approach that requires notification of
an entity such as a Body Corporate, with requirements that the entity concerned
notifies individual owners.
· Fines on
non-compliant building owners – Auckland Council
supports the extension of enforcement powers to allow territorial authorities
to fine owners and persons who commit an offence in relation to the provisions
of this Bill.
· Action to
be taken upon conclusion of timeframes – Auckland
Council does not support the forcible demolition of an earthquake-prone
building at the conclusion of the upgrading timeframe, but would rather have
the power to cordon and shutdown the structure instead.
· Priorities – Auckland Council supports certain classes of buildings as being
recognised as a priority for upgrading and the timeframes for their upgrading
reduced to reflect the risk associated with a failure of such a building.
· Low-risk exemptions – Auckland Council supports certain classes of buildings, seen to
represent a low risk to occupants, being able to be exempted from the
requirement to strengthen to the national standard.
· Accessibility and
fire safety exemptions – Auckland Council supports in
principle the amendment for territorial authorities (that are Building Consent
Authorities) to be granted the ability to issue building consents for the
specific seismic strengthening of earthquake-prone buildings without requiring
other upgrades (for access and facilities for people with disabilities and for
means of escape from fire). However we have concerns that these exemptions may
be used by building owners to avoid making otherwise required improvements to
the accessibility of their buildings.
15. Additional
matters that we have submitted on are:
· Provisional
assessments – Auckland Council provides a time
period in which reports we conduct are in a provisional state and open to input
by the building owner to assist with filling in gaps in our knowledge about
particular buildings. We wish to see that allowance for reports in such a
format is maintained.
· Cessation of existing policy – Provision needs to be ensured that existing policies and action
taken under them can either be grandfathered or converted in such a way as to
not undermine the intent of previous regulatory action.
· Targeted
strengthening - We support the recommendations
enabling the upgrading of specific at risk parts of buildings to a specified
level, not just the building in general.
16. The Auckland
Council submission has been prepared, in consultation with stakeholder groups,
to help inform the process to improve the state of the national
earthquake-prone building system. The submission reflects the general views of
our stakeholders, with the exception of the Accessibility and Fire Safety
Exemptions – Council’s Disability Strategic Advisory Panel disagree that these
exemptions are warranted. We continue to encourage a recognition of expert
engineering and geological science in informing regulatory actions, as well as
a reasoned appreciation of the financial and heritage concerns that also play a
part. It is necessary to ensure we achieve a regulatory framework that balances
safety enhancement, cost minimisation, and heritage preservation
considerations.
Consideration
Local
Board Views
17. Informal
consultation has been engaged in with the local boards over the last 3 years
regarding the matter of earthquake-prone buildings and Auckland Council policy.
Maori
Impact Statement
18. This policy
submission has no specific impact upon Maori different to the general populace.
General
19. Regardless of
the content of Auckland Council’s submission to the select committee, the
result of this consultation process will result in legislative and regulatory
framework change, resulting in a need for Auckland’s earthquake-prone building
policy revision well ahead of the 5 year review period we presently work to.
Based on legislative change timeframes the Council may anticipate the need to
revise its current earthquake prone building policy in late 2014.
Implementation
Issues
20. The submission
(circulated under separate cover) will need to be made by 17 April 2014 as
required by the Local Government and Environment Committee. Failure to do so
will mean that Auckland Council’s input on the future direction of
Earthquake-Prone Building policy across the country will be limited.
21. Specific
implementation issues will need to be considered once the amendment to the
Building Act legislation has been enacted.
Attachments
The proposed
submission document is still being finalised and will be circulated under
separate cover.
Signatories
|
Authors
|
Patrick Cummuskey, Special projects
policy advisor
|
|
Authorisers
|
Ian McCormick - Manager Building Control
Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer
|
