REGULATORY PROCESS COMMITTEE

15 NOVEMBER 2006

REPORT 2

(1215/53/IM) EARTHQUAKE PRONE BUILDING POLICY - REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME -25 HUTT ROAD

1. Purpose of Report

To consider a request for an extension of time to comply with the Council’s Earthquake Prone Building Policy (EPBP). The building is located at 25 Hutt Road, Thorndon, Lot 1-2 DP 4035

2. Executive Summary

The applicants, Peter and Chryso George, have owned the 90-year-old building for 36 years and known the building is earthquake prone for at least 7 years. The potential for collapse in an earthquake, resulting in injury, death or damage to other property is high. The potential for harm to the greatest number of people is highest when functions are being held on the premises. The potential for causing damage to other property remains constant. The applicants were issued with a notice to upgrade the building in 1999, however this was suspended when the Building Act 2004 was enacted (pending regulations). A second notice was issued in accordance with the EPBP requiring that the building be upgraded by 30 June 2008. The applicants have requested a three-year extension. They intend to demolish the property and rebuild on the site in 2011.

3. Recommendations

It is recommended that the Committee:

1. Receive the information. 2. Decline the request for an extension of time to reduce or remove the

danger.

4. Background

The Council’s Earthquake Prone Building Policy was adopted in May 2006. It provides for buildings to meet minimum performance standards, set under the Building Act 2004, in the event of a moderate earthquake. The objective of the policy is to advance public safety and minimise potential injury, loss of life and damage to other property.

The policy provides for the Council to consider applications for extensions of time to comply with the Act and the Regulatory Committee holds delegated authority to decide on applications that are lodged with the Council. The application for an extension of time from Peter and Chryso George is the first since the EPBP was adopted, earlier this year. The applicants seek a three year extension to the timeframe set in the policy, and embodied in the notice subsequently issued under s124 of the Building Act 2004. The building was built in 1916 and was acquired by the applicants in October 1970. The applicants were notified in 1999 that the structural strength of the building was below the standard set in the Building Act 1991 for earthquake prone buildings, and requested that work to reduce the danger be undertaken by May 2000. Correspondence continued during 2001, 2002 and 2003, including an offer from the Council to provide monetary assistance to undertake a feasibility study. An earthquake prone building notice was issued in June 2004 as there had been no progress made in resolving the situation. This notice was suspended pending the setting of regulations establishing new thresholds for earthquake prone buildings under the Building Act 2004. A new earthquake prone building notice was issued in June 2006 in line with policy1 requiring the property owners to start work to reduce or remove the danger by June 2008.

5. Discussion

Attachment 2 of the EPBP lists fourteen points to consider after receiving an application for an extension in time to complete strengthening work. 5.1 Whether people who use the building can do so safely The building is a two storey un-reinforced concrete structure. The initial evaluation of the building structure indicates that the building is approximately thirty to forty times more likely to collapse in an earthquake than a new building. The theoretical numbers of occupants for the building are:

• Fabric Warehouse: 32 persons during normal business hours • Takeaway bar: 3 persons during normal business hours • Function catering business: 287 persons (the health licence is based

on 250 seats). The owner has provided details of the occupancy rates for the function area giving an average occupancy of 121 guests with a maximum of 250 and occupancy of 126 hours in a year.

Although the exposure to risk for the crowd numbers attending functions is low at 1.4%, the building is actually occupied for around a third of the time. The

1 Page 5 EPBP. For buildings that have previously been issued with a s66 notice under the Building Act 1991, work must begin within two years of the notice being reissued under s 124 of the Building Act 2004.

consequence for occupants in the building during an earthquake could be serious including the possibility of death. 5.2 Need to provide for the protection of other property from the

risk of physical damage The building is situated on a corner site with frontage on Hutt Road, Sar Street and a service lane and is adjoined in its northern side by another building. The collapse of this building in a moderate earthquake event is likely to damage vehicles and the adjacent building. 5.3 Importance of ensuring that each building is durable for its

intended use The applicant has indicated an intention to demolish the building. 5.4 Cost of the building (including maintenance) over its whole life No information has been provided by the applicant 5.5 Building structure and strength i.e. the code that was used to

design and construct the building compared with compliance with current building code.

The building was built in 1916. There was no standard for building design at the time. It has not been structurally strengthened since initially built and was identified prior to the enactment of the Building Act 2004 as being earthquake-prone. A code comparison study2 undertaken as part of the policy development indicated that likely strength was 10-15 % of a building designed to NZS1170.53

An initial evaluation scored4 5 – 10% new building score. This indicates strength significantly less than the one third current code standard set in regulation5 5.6 Whether the building has already been strengthened along

with the level it was strengthened to and when the work was done

See above 2 Reference Beca Report. Dated 5th October 2005 3 Reference NZS 1170:5:2004 Structural Design Actions part 5: Earthquake actions- New Zealand 4 The initial evaluation (IEP) was undertaken in accordance with the process set out in the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering ‘Recommendations for the assessment and improvement of the structural performance of buildings in an earthquake’. This is the process identified in the Earthquake Prone Building policy 5 The Building (Specified Systems, Change the Use, and Earthquake-prone Buildings) Regulations 2005.

5.7 Importance of recognising any special traditional and cultural

aspects of the intended is of the building No special traditional or cultural aspects have been identified. 5.8 Need to facilitate the preservation of building of significant

cultural, historical, or heritage value Although the building is relatively old, it is not regarded as having significant heritage value as it is not listed in the Wellington City District Plan or in the Historic Places Register. The fabric of the building has not been identified as meriting preservation. 5.9 Special characteristics of the building e.g. heritage or historic See above 5.10 Financial Implications The Council advised the owners that the building was earthquake prone and needed to be strengthened or demolished in May 1999. The applicant has stated that the changes to the Building Act have “brought about significant increases in building costs”. If the building were to be upgraded the owner would need to undertake strengthening work to meet the increased requirements of the Building Act 2004. However, the owner has indicated an intention to demolish the building and the scope of this work is unchanged. The cost of undertaking new work increases with time. Delaying the demolition work by a further 3 years is likely to result in increased costs. The owner also cites “the need to maintain three financially sound businesses, keep their employees in work and businesses in operation”. 5.11 Ramifications if the building were to be demolished rather

than strengthen e.g. loss of heritage for future generations The applicant has indicated an intention to demolish the building. Re-development of the site results in improvements to the safety of the community and allows for activities/premises that better meet current needs. 5.12 Availability of the appropriate people to do all the work. The applicant states that “a shortage of tradesmen has had a marked influence on the development of this site.”

5.13 Importance level of building Prioritisation is determined by considering two criteria in the EPBP; an importance level rating and the building’s age and condition. The building’s importance rating is 2 on a scale of 1 (lowest rating of risk) to 5 (structures whose failure poses a catastrophic risk to a large area or large number of people). A rating of 2 applies to structures not covered by other ratings and includes single family dwellings, and car-parking buildings. The building is used for private functions and retail activities. In terms of priority, the building is rated ‘moderate’ due to its rating of 2 and its age, as it was built prior to the NZS1900 Chapter 8: 1965 Standard coming into effect. Moderate priority buildings have a maximum timeframe of 10 years to comply with the Act. In this case, the building owners have already known of the need for strengthening for at least 7 years. 5.14 Options (a) Council could decline the application, in which case the owner would be

required to comply with the s124 Notice (copy appended).

(b) Council could approve the application, with or without conditions, noting that if the building had not been issued with the s66 Notice, under the Building Act 1991, the EPBP would require the building to be upgraded or demolished by 2016.

(c) The Council could also place limits on the occupancy numbers in the building. The owner’s submission cites the continuance of the existing businesses as being necessary to accumulate funds to carry out the redevelopment work. Limiting the numbers attending functions may adversely affect the viability of this business.

(d) The Building Act 2004 requires that the issued notice be fixed to the building. This in effect allows visitors to the building to be informed about the increased risk the building poses to occupants. The notices are very often removed.

6. Conclusion

Allowing the 3 year time frame extension sought to 30 June 2011 would impose a continuing hazard for occupants over this extended period. The probability that the building would be occupied, if an earthquake occurred in this time period, is moderate and the potential consequences in such an event are high. This is the same level of risk that has existed throughout the life of the building.

The notice fixed externally, adjacent to the entry to the function centre, so that it was positioned to be easily read and protected from the elements to maintain legibility, would provide information to potential visitors. Claire Stevens Team Leader Bylaws Building Consents and Licensing Services

Supporting Information 1)Strategic Fit / Strategic Outcome This activity primarily contributes to the outcome that “Wellingtonians will feel safe in all parts of the city”. It also contributes in part to the outcome that “Wellington will protect its heritage buildings and ensure that new developments are sympathetic to them” 2) LTCCP/Annual Plan reference and long term financial impact The project is contained in the LTCCP 1.4.1 “Wellington will have access to safe and reliable energy and water supplies ,clean air and waste disposal systems that protect public health and ecosystems”. Specifically it is the “Earthquake risk Building Project”. There are no financial impacts for Council as a result of this decision. 3) Treaty of Waitangi considerations None identified 4) Decision-Making Decision pursuant to earthquake prone building policy. This is the first hearing which will create precedence.

5) Consultation The submission received from the owner is attached as Appendix A. The policy was publicly consulted on, during development. 6) Legal Implications Legal advice was received during the development of the policy. 7) Consistency with existing policy The Earthquake Prone Building Policy was adopted by Council on 31 May 2006. This is the first hearing as a consequence of this policy.

Appendix A-Owners Submission

Peter George 25 Hutt Road Thorndon WELLINGTON 31 October 2006 George Skimming Director, Consents and Licensing Wellington City Council PO Box 2199 WELLIGNTON Dear Mr Skimming 25 HUTT ROAD- BUILDING DEEMED TO BE EARTHQAUKE PRONE Thank you for the opportunity to present my submission for the above property in regard to the Hearing Process for Council’s Earthquake Prone Building Policy adopted in May 2006. This submission is written to support an application to extend the time frame for compliance for the building situated at 25 Hutt Road, described as Lot 1-2 Deposited Plan 4035, and being all the land comprised in Certificate of title WN8C/1256. I have received Council’s letter of 30th June 2006 and Notice pursuant to s 124 of the Building Act 2004 in respect of the building at 25 Hutt Road Pipitea, which has been deemed to be earthquake prone. Council’s Notice states that we are required to begin strengthening work or demolish the building by 30th June 2008. We seek to extend this by three years to 30th June 2011. We accept the issue of the Notice and intent of the policy, however we have been caught short with the changes to Building Act. These changed have brought about significant increases in building costs and this, coupled with a shortage of tradesmen in this industry has had a marked influence on the development of this site. In short, we have found ourselves at this time, not in a financial position to redevelop the site within the time lines given. That is why an extension to the time frame for having a compliant building on this site has been requested. This request is based on the need to maintain three financially sound businesses, keep their employees in work and businesses in operation until such time as the building is demolished and the site developed. This building houses three business, these are:

Appendix A-Owners Submission

• Function catering business, • Luncheon take away • Retail fabric shop. The retail fabric premise has Street frontage and direct access from Saar Street while the luncheon bar has street frontage and access from Hutt Road. The Function Centre is located on the upper level of the building with pedestrian access from Saar Street, with goods and services access at the rear of the building and fire exit from the front of the building onto Hutt Road. There is egress from the building on all three sides. While the retail shop and luncheon bar operate normal business hours the function centre operates as bookings dictate. I have attached a breakdown of use from 1 November 2005 to 31 October 2006. This analysis shows that there have been 28 functions on site with an average of 121 people per function. Their average duration for a function is 4.5 hours. It is important to note that the function centre has a occupancy rate of 7.7%. It is my firm intention to develop the site, which would require the building to be demolished. I have a project to see this site developed, however due to financial viability I am not in a position to have the work started within 2 years of the notice being issued. In order for me to continue to trade and be in a position whereby I can develop the site I request that an extension to my Notice pursuant to s 214 of the Building Act 2004 be extended by 3 years to June 2011. To undertake this work prior to this date would place a level of financial hardship that I am not in a position to sustain and this would impact on people’s livelihoods for all three businesses. It is my intention to have the concept designs for the site finalised and have plans completed within the period. I would financially be in a position to go out to tender in 2010 with the firm intention of having the work started in 2011. It is my expectation that the current building on this site will be ready for demolition early 2011. I thank you for your consideration. Yours sincerely Peter George

Appendix A-Owners Submission

Occupancy Function Centre

Date Function Type Number of

Guests Time Duration-

Hours

11/11/2005 Ball 130 7.00-12.30 4.512/11/2005 50th Wedding Anniversary 160 2.00-6.00 415/11/2005 AGM 50 6.00-9.00 318/11/2005 Work Social 90 7.30-12.00 4.519/11/2005 Wedding 200 7.30-1.00 5.526/11/2005 Xmas Party 170 8.00-1.00 52/12/2005 Xmas cabaret 60 8.00-1.00 53/12/2005 Xmas cabaret 156 8.00-1.00 59/12/2005 Xmas cabaret 64 8.00-1.00 5

10/12/2005 Xmas cabaret 190 8.00-1.00 513/12/2005 School Dinner 80 7.00-11.00 414/12/2005 Xmas Party 110 8.00-1.00 5

17/12/2005 Xmas cabaret 105 8.00-1.00 5 19/12/2005 School Dinner 250 8.00-12.00 428/12/2005 Wedding 140 6.00-11.00 54/02/2006Conference Dinner 45 8.00-10.00 2

18/02/2006 Greek Christening 160 8.00-2.00 620/03/2006 Club AGM 130 8.00-12.30 4.517/05/2006 Org. AGM 90 11.30-2.30 322/05/2006 Club Function 85 7.00-11.00 422/06/2006 Trade Dinner 240 4.30-12.00 7.524/06/2006 21st 180 6.00-11.00 530/06/2006 Wedding 60 4.00-9.30 5.5

9/09/2006AGM 80 8.00-10.30 2.530/09/2006 Wedding 140 5.00-11.00 6

8/10/2006Greek Christening 120 4.00-7.00 313/10/2006 Ball 70 8.00-12.00 414/10/2006 Club function 30 7.00-10.30 3.5

3385 126 Average 121 guests per function Average duration of function- 4.5 hours Occupancy rate 7.7%

Appendix B – Copy of Notice

Notice pursuant to s124 of the Building Act 2004 in respect of a building deemed to be earthquake

prone To: Owner; Chryso George 25 Hutt Road Pipitea Wellington 6001

Owner; Peter George 25 Hutt Road Pipitea Wellington 6001

Occupier; Flamingo Catering Service 25-27 Hutt Road Pipitea Wellington

Occupier; The Fabric Warehouse 25 Hutt Road Pipitea Wellington

The National Bank The Manager PO Box 1393 Wellington

Address: The building situated at 25 Hutt Road, and more particularly

being described as Lot 1-2 Deposited Plan 4035, and being all the land comprised in Certificate of Title WN8C/1256.

You are the owners of the building at the above address that has been classified by the Wellington City Council as earthquake prone in terms of s124 of the Building Act 2004. You are accordingly required by 30 June 2008 to either:

(a) begin strengthening work to strengthen the building to a sufficient degree so that it is not earthquake prone; or

(b) demolish the building.

A building consent must be obtained prior to strengthening or demolition work being undertaken. The building consent must be obtained and the work must begin before the expiry of the timeframe noted above. Under s122 of the Building Act 2004, the meaning of earthquake-prone building is (1) A building is earthquake prone for the purpose of this Act if, having regard to its condition and the ground on which it is built, and because of its construction, the building-

(a) will have its ultimate capacity exceeded in a moderate earthquake (as defined in the regulations/below); and (b) would be likely to collapse causing-

(i) injury or death to persons in the building or to persons on any other property; or

(ii) damage to any other property. Moderate earthquake has the same meaning as section 7 in the Building Regulations 2005 where- ‘…moderate earthquake means, in relation to a building, an earthquake that would generate shaking at the site of the building that is of the same duration

Appendix B – Copy of Notice

as, but that is one-third as strong as, the earthquake shaking (determined by normal measures of acceleration, velocity, and displacement) that would be used to design a new building at that site.’ The above mentioned building was issued with a notice under s66 of the Building Act 1991 classifying this building as earthquake prone. This s124 notice supersedes the former s66 notice. For further clarification see the ‘Maximum Timeframe to Strengthen a Building’ section of the Wellington City Council’s Earthquake-Prone Buildings Policy. If you disagree with the classification of this building as earthquake prone you may apply for a determination from the Department of Building and Housing under s177(e) of the Building Act 2004. If you do not comply with the terms of this notice the Council can (but is not limited to) initiate a prosecution under the Building Act 2004 or put up a hoarding or fence to prevent access into the building pursuant to s124(1)(a) of the Building Act 2004. Dated: 30 June 2006 Katharine Wheeler Building Permissions Manager Building Consents and Licensing Services Wellington City Council

Appendix C - Photos

Appendix C - Photos