submission by hamilton city council building (earthquake-prone … · 2014. 5. 2. · building...

Submission by

Hamilton City Council

Building (Earthquake-Prone Buildings) Amendment Bill

17 April 2014

The key points of the submission are: Assessment Process (Hamilton City Council’s Earthquake-Prone, Dangerous and Insanitary Buildings Policy – refer Appendix 1)

1. HCC’s assessment process may not meet the criteria for assessment that eventuates from the Bill, meaning HCC would be faced with having to repeat the whole assessment process undertaken in 2013.

2. We do not want to assess buildings that have already been recently assessed by applying a new criteria developed by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE), particularly as our initial assessments were based on a risk matrix that has proven to be accurate in identifying earthquake-prone buildings.

3. Any assessment model developed by MBIE will likely be similar to that developed by HCC (in conjunction with members of the Society of Earthquake Engineers).

Funding the Assessments 4. We do not agree with councils having to fund seismic assessments – this cost should be

fully met by the building owner as it currently is in terms of our Earthquake-Prone, Dangerous and Insanitary Buildings Policy (EQ Policy).

5. HCC has no funding for such work, however the cost is likely to be significant. It imposes an unnecessary cost on ratepayers who will need to meet the cost of the work, with no proven direct benefit to anyone other than the building owner.

National Register 6. We agree that MBIE establish a national register. As the information making up the central

register will come from local government, MBIE should consider a system where councils submit information by smart technology means.

Strengthening Buildings 7. HCC supports the National Building Standards (NBS), particularly as 34% NBS aligns with our

current EQ Policy.

HCC Ref: D- 1389894 / Sub #: 404 of 8

8. We agree with the approach of applying the 34% NBS threshold to parts of buildings as well as the whole building where this is applicable.

9. Also agree with the approach that the level of strengthening required is only so that the building or affected part is no longer earthquake-prone.

Background Comments 1. HCC has previously made submissions to:

• The Ministry of Building, Innovation and Employment’s December 2012 Consultation Document 'Building Seismic Performance: Proposals to Improve the New Zealand Earthquake-Prone Building System' (submission made 13/3/13).

• The Canterbury Earthquakes Royal Commission Discussion Paper: Roles and Responsibilities (submission made 10/8/12).

2. HCC adopted its Earthquake-Prone, Dangerous and Insanitary Buildings Policy (EQ Policy) on the 24th May 2006. This is a proactive policy that has established timeframes for strengthening buildings based on the ‘risk’ to our community. It is critical that HCC is able to take advantage of the work already completed as a considerable amount of resource has gone into rolling out its present EQ Policy.

3. HCC’s EQ Policy aligns with the Bill’s key changes, and will remain current until the changes are made to the Building Act 2004 (expected to be completed by 2015-16). Our present EQ Policy, we understand, will no longer apply when the Bill comes into force.

4. HCC supports the proposals to move to a system that has a significantly greater role for central government, particularly in providing leadership and direction, to make better use of the capability and resources of central and local government. We also note that a significant role for the market is also to be retained.

5. HCC notes that the Bill’s focus is to create one set of rules applicable to all sectors of the country to primarily address concerns that MBIE has with varying council policies that are not proactive and what they perceive as ineffective in establishing a higher level of safety for low strength buildings.

6. HCC would like to also draw MBIEs attention to the cost balance with regard to repairing an existing building, as compared to erecting a similar size of building on the same land. In many cases we are aware that the cost of repairing a building can be approximately the same as constructing a new one. In such cases, we submit that the primary decision to upgrade an older building is a decision based on the willingness of the owner to preserve the building and has very little to do with the cost.

Key Changes to the Bill and HCC’s Response Seismic Assessment to be Completed by Councils

7. Territorial authorities are required to complete a seismic assessment of all non-residential and multi-unit, multi-storey residential buildings in their areas within five years of changes to new legislation taking effect. The assessment will include an evaluation of building plans, location and easily observable building characteristics, with councils expected to meet the cost of these assessments.

8. The Bill requires MBIE’s Chief Executive to set a methodology for territorial authorities to use for the purpose of carrying out seismic capacity assessments. The methodology must, among other things, specify how territorial authorities are to prioritise the assessment of priority buildings within their district.

HCC Ref: D- 1389894 / Sub #: 404 of 8

Response

9. HCC does not want to assess buildings that have already been recently assessed. Our initial assessments were based on a risk matrix that proved to be extremely accurate. HCC staff, in discussions with MBIE staff, understand that any assessment model developed by MBIE will likely be similar to that of HCC.

10. HCC developed an initial assessment tool in conjunction with the Society of Earthquake Engineer’s members in 2005/6 and we are aware that the initial assessment model is likely to be similar in terms of assessing risk. In identifying and assessing over 2,000 buildings in Hamilton, our assessment tool has proven to be accurate in identifying earthquake-prone buildings, given that buildings sitting close to the 34% threshold can be under or over with one or two points difference.

11. Engineering reports we have received for buildings identified as earthquake-prone in terms of our policy (where HCC has identified them) have reinforced the accuracy of our assessment process and we have many examples we can show MBIE if required. It is important we submit that MBIE understand we have identified most earthquake-prone buildings in the city in terms of the present Building Act 2004 requirements. We realise there will be a number of other buildings that we have not captured that will require assessment as a result of the proposed changes likely to occur with any new legislation. Any building post 1976 construction in our experience with assessing buildings will be above the 34% threshold and therefore it would not be our intention to assess any post 1976 buildings. We also recognise that there will be a cost to HCC to identify the buildings as a result of the legislative changes if they proceed as proposed.

12. This seismic assessment has been substantially completed in terms of our present EQ Policy. However, there is some risk that our process used to assess buildings will not meet the criteria for assessment that eventuates from the Bill. We would therefore be faced with having to repeat the whole process. In either case, there will likely be some further assessments required for those buildings where an engineer’s assessment and report has not been received.

13. There is no funding for such work at this time. While the potential cost has not been estimated, it is likely to be significant.

14. HCC does not agree with councils having to fund seismic assessments – this cost should be fully met by the building owner as it presently is in terms of our EQ Policy. In our view the cost to improve a building should be met by the party that has the most to gain – the building owner. HCC submits it is unreasonable to expect local government to fund improvement costs for substandard buildings as local government has already incurred significant costs and continues to do so in funding all other actions, including identifying earthquake-prone buildings, setting up and maintaining databases and information and working with building owners.

MBIE to Establish a National Register of Earthquake-Prone Buildings

15. HCC understands that building owners will receive the results of assessments and this information will be entered onto a publicly accessible national register of earthquake-prone buildings established by MBIE.

Response

16. We agree with MBIE establishing a national register and suggest that as the information making up the central register will come from local government that MBIE consider a system whereby councils can submit information by smart technology means i.e. create a database where each council has access to their own building stock information and can update files to ensure they are current in terms of the state of the building/s.

HCC Ref: D- 1389894 / Sub #: 404 of 8

15 Year National Timeframe to Strengthen or Demolish Earthquake-Prone Buildings

17. Following assessments we understand that earthquake-prone buildings will have to be strengthened or demolished within 15 years (except buildings that may be eligible for exemptions and/or extensions to this timeframe). The Bill allows for a transitional process where a notice has been issued to a building owner in terms of section 124 of the Building Act 2004, which sets a timeframe by which the building must be made safe or upgraded. If this notice exceeds the 15 year timeframe prescribed in the Bill, then it becomes invalid. However, if it aligns with the timeframe prescribed in the Bill, then it remains valid and the building owner must comply.

Response

18. HCC’s current EQ Policy defines buildings in three Risk Categories i.e. 1, 2, and 3. Category 1 buildings are required to be strengthened or demolished by 2019; Category 2 buildings are required to be strengthened or demolished by 2030; there is no requirement for Category 3 buildings to be strengthened or demolished and it is at the owner’s discretion to obtain an engineer’s report and strengthen or demolish the building.

19. Building owners have been notified by HCC that their building is potentially earthquake-prone. We ask that MBIE clarify if the notifications HCC has provided to all earthquake-prone building owners (refer Appendix 2) meets the legal intention of the Building Act 2004, including the changes signaled by MBIE – i.e. the notice/s sets a timeframe for upgrading the building to 34% NBS (or greater) or the owner demolishes the building or makes the building safe, and the owner must carry out this work by the date specified in the notice. HCC’s understanding is that as the notices in terms of HCC’s policy identified a timeframe (which was made clear in the policy), then this creates a legal obligation for the building owner, as the building owner has been formally advised of the action required and the timeframe in which to carry out the action.

20. Buildings assessed by HCC will only need to meet the timeframes as proposed in the Bill, which means owners have 15 years in which to upgrade or demolish their buildings (after assessment by HCC), except in the case of Category 1 buildings in terms of HCC’s policy (refer point 18). If notification occurs in 2015 (when the law changes may be in place), then HCC notes this puts strengthening or demolition by 2035 and aligns with the present timeframe in HCC’s EQ Policy for Category 2 buildings.

21. The graph below shows the original number of buildings that are potentially earthquake-prone, with the greatest number falling within Category 2. The second graph outlines the present position in terms of reports received in each category, the number of buildings where reports have been received and the balance still requiring a report.

HCC Ref: D- 1389894 / Sub #: 404 of 8

Figure 1: Potential EQ Prone Buildings1

Figure 2: EQ Prone Building Status - Hamilton 20131

Strengthening Buildings

22. Earthquake-prone buildings will have to be strengthened to 34% NBS so they are no longer earthquake-prone.

Response

23. HCC supports the 34% NBS, and notes this aligns with HCC’s current EQ Policy.

Prioritising Certain Buildings for Assessment

24. Certain buildings will be prioritised for assessment and strengthening i.e. buildings likely to have a significant impact on public safety (e.g. those with potential falling hazards), and strategically important buildings (e.g. those on transport routes identified as critical in an emergency).

1 As defined by HCC’s Earthquake-Prone, Dangerous and Insanitary Buildings Policy.

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

Potential Category 1 Buildings



Potential EQ Prone Buildings

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

Report Received No Longer Prone

Report Not Required

Report Received still Prone

No Report Received

Category 1

Category 2

Category 3

HCC Ref: D- 1389894 / Sub #: 404 of 8

Response

25. HCC’s EQ Policy defines categories according to risk. Category 1 encompasses all large public buildings (including those in the city centre, university, hospital and polytechnic campuses), therefore the timing for strengthening or demolition is 2019, which aligns with the proposed prioritisation change in terms of significant public risk buildings.

26. Buildings identified as having a significant impact on public safety are given priority in terms of HCC’s EQ Policy. The present Category 1 buildings meet the proposed criteria for prioritisation following MBIE’s lead. We therefore submit that HCC’s present policy for Category 1 buildings will meet the requirements for prioritising buildings that have a significant impact on public safety.

Exemptions from Strengthening Timeframe

27. Owners of some buildings will be able to apply for exemptions from the national timeframe for strengthening. These will be buildings where the effects of failure are likely to be minimal and could include farm buildings or others with little passing traffic.

Response

28. HCC’s EQ Policy has no provision for exemptions from meeting timeframes and there are few farm buildings in the city. There are however, industrial/commercial buildings utilised for storage or purposes where few people frequent the building and some of these buildings are extremely large. Although the effects of them failing are minimal in terms of public safety, we submit that the effect of their failure will have other significant outcomes, including disruption to chain of supply and insurances. We submit that MBIE consider all issues and not just focus on the public safety element when assessing how the structure of exemptions will work.

Heritage Buildings and Strengthening Timeframes

29. Owners of earthquake-prone Category 1 buildings (listed on the register of historic places under the Historic Places Act 1993) and those on the proposed National Historic Landmarks List will be able to apply for extensions of up to 10 years to the national timeframe for strengthening.

Response

30. There are 6 Historic Places Trust Category 1 listed buildings in Hamilton as well as 45 - A or A+ ranked buildings in Hamilton City’s District Plan. It is assumed that the owners of the Category 1 listed buildings will be able to apply for extensions of time for strengthening or demolition. HCC will need to consider how it wishes to deal with the District Plan listings in terms of earthquake strengthening.

Earthquake-Prone Building Definition and Strengthening Level Required

31. Clarify the current threshold for defining an earthquake-prone building (i.e.34% NBS), and that it applies to parts of buildings as well as whole buildings.

32. Clarify that the level of strengthening required for earthquake-prone buildings is only so that the building, or the affected part, is no longer earthquake-prone (i.e. 34% NBS or greater).

Response

33. HCC agrees with the approach of applying the 34% threshold to parts of buildings as well as the whole building and also agrees with the approach that level of strengthening required is only so that the building or affected part is no longer earthquake-prone.

HCC Ref: D- 1389894 / Sub #: 404 of 8

Heritage Buildings and Strengthening Timeframes

34. Provide for owners of Category 1 and 2 (not to be confused with HCC’s current policy Category 1 and 2 buildings) listed earthquake-prone heritage buildings to apply for extensions of time to strengthen their buildings where risk is being managed/reduced.

Response

35. HCC agrees with the proposal for owners of Category 1 and 2 listed earthquake-prone buildings to be able to apply for extensions of time to strengthen their buildings. However, we submit that there needs to be absolute clarity from MBIE in terms of how risk can be minimised or reduced. For heritage buildings that have high levels of public access and use we submit that such buildings are high-risk and should be treated in the same manner as any other high-risk building. Refer point 24 above - prioritisation of certain buildings for assessment.

Upgrades to Access and Facilities for People with Disabilities and Fire Safety

36. Facilitate required earthquake strengthening works being carried out on buildings that are earthquake-prone, by amending provisions in relation to upgrades to access and facilities for people with disabilities and fire safety.

Response

37. HCC has made previous submissions on this section and hold the view that the fire safety provisions of the building code in terms of upgrading any building have equal importance to earthquake strengthening. We submit it is important that any building has adequate fire safety provisions and there is consideration for access and facilities for people with disabilities in the event a building is considered earthquake-prone and requires strengthening. We know from our experience there is opportunity to consider strengthening, fire safety and accessibility as a package and factor in cost. It is not acceptable in our view to compromise one area of life safety for the sake of another as both are equally important.

38. Most buildings, we submit, are able to be made more accessible and more user-friendly, often at minimal cost without applying the full extent of the building code. MBIE has provided a simple assessment tool for BCAs to utilise in considering the complexity and risk of any upgrade proposal that allows the BCA to apply a risk to the proposal and as a result identify the key elements requiring attention in terms of section 112 of the Building Act 2004. This directly relates to the cost of any proposal. It is important that MBIE understands there must be consideration of all life safety requirements, otherwise life safety may be compromised.

HCC Ref: D- 1389894 / Sub #: 404 of 8

Further Information and Hearings For any questions on the submission points, please contact Phil Saunders (Building Control Manager) on 07 838 6541, or email [email protected]

HCC does wish to speak in support of its written submission at the Local Government and Environment Select Committee hearings. Yours faithfully

Barry Harris CHIEF EXECUTIVE

Although this submission has been circulated to HCC’s Elected Members for consideration and feedback, it has not been adopted through the formal committee process. HCC’s submission is to be considered and adopted retrospectively at the 30 April 2014 Strategy and Policy Committee meeting. We will advise you after this meeting if HCC makes any changes to its submission.

HCC Ref: D- 1389894 / Sub #: 404 of 8

mailto:[email protected]


POLICY MANUAL

This page was printed on Monday, March 14, 2011 from the Corporate Policy Manual and it is an uncontrolled copy of the Policy. Please contact the Finance & Administration Unit if you require further assistance.

Page 1

Subject Earthquake-Prone, Dangerous And Insanitary Buildings Policy

File Reference 30/5/3

Approved By Council Date Approved 24 May 2006 Date Reviewed 10 March 2008

Sponsor General Manager City Planning & Environmental Services

Community Outcome Sustainable & Well-Planned An attractive city that is planned for the well-being of people and nature, now and in the future.

Objective To ensure that this policy meets the requirements and intent of the Building Act 2004 and contributes to ensuring that buildings in Hamilton City do not compromise people’s health and safety in the event of an earthquake and /or through dangerous or insanitary conditions. The policy aims to balance potential health and safety benefits with any economic costs.

Policy

1.0 Introduction

Section 131 of the Building Act 2004 (the Act) requires all territorial authorities to adopt a policy on earthquake-prone, dangerous and insanitary buildings by 31 May 2006. The definition of an earthquake-prone building is set out in Section 122 of the Act and in the related Building Regulation SR 2005/32 that defines a “moderate earthquake”. This definition is significantly more extensive and requires a higher level of structural performance than that required under the previous Building Act 1991. It now includes all buildings and not just those constructed of un-reinforced masonry or un-reinforced concrete. Ultimately, the new requirements will impact on and include a greater number of buildings than the 1991 Act. Section 121 of the Act defines a dangerous building and Section 123 defines an insanitary building. The definitions of earthquake-prone, dangerous and insanitary buildings, as provided in the Act and Building Regulation SR 2005/32, are attached as Appendix One.

Appendix 1


POLICY MANUAL


Page 2

In accordance with the requirements of the Building Act 2004, this policy states:

1. The approach Council will take in performing its functions under the Building Act 2004.

2. Council’s priorities in performing those functions. 3. How the policy will apply to heritage buildings.

In developing and adopting this policy Council has used the special consultative procedure set out in Section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002.

In constructing this policy, Council has made use of the Department of Building and Housing’s (DBH) guidance document, the Building Act 2004, relevant New Zealand Standards and related documents.

2.0 Background

2.1 Hamilton’s Seismic Risk Hamilton’s geographical positioning does not expose it to the likelihood of a major earthquake. The city’s primary risk of a major disaster is from ash fallout from a volcanic eruption. That is not to say that Hamilton is without risk, but that the risk is lower in terms of comparison with many other areas in New Zealand. Hamilton lies in a low to moderate seismic zone and historically there have been few seismic events affecting Hamilton City. The low frequency of earthquake events that have caused damage in the city can be related to the absence of active faulting in the city’s vicinity. Despite Hamilton City not being located on an active faultline, earthquake events that affect the city may also be caused from faults located within the Waikato Region and throughout New Zealand.1 The risk of a damaging earthquake affecting Hamilton is lower than in a number of other major centres in New Zealand. However, the requirement to have an earthquake-prone buildings policy in place will assist in minimising risk from an earthquake in a way that balances any potential health and safety benefits with economic costs associated with implementing this policy.

2.2 Hamilton’s Building Stock

Generally, Hamilton’s buildings are of a good standard. The city’s buildings comprise a range of structures reflecting the development of a growing regional centre over more than 100 years. Buildings of a commercial and industrial nature are mainly structures post 1900, ranging from un-reinforced masonry through to reinforced concrete. The majority of buildings of un-reinforced masonry have been strengthened to approximately

1 Blackstock, Hugh (2002) Hazard Mapping in Hamilton City, New Zealand, University of Waikato, Hamilton.


POLICY MANUAL


Page 3

50 percent of New Zealand Standard 4203 through redevelopment and refurbishment during the 1990’s. Hamilton does not have a large number of high-rise buildings and most are reinforced concrete of a good standard. Other buildings of any significant height and groupings occur in isolation at some distance from the central city.

3.0 Policy Approach

3.1 Policy Principles

This policy deals with earthquake-prone buildings and also dangerous and insanitary buildings. The Building Act 2004 expresses the government’s policy objective for New Zealand’s buildings. One of the key purposes of the Act is to ensure that people who use buildings can do so safely and without endangering their health. Earthquake-prone, dangerous and insanitary buildings policies must be developed by each individual territorial authority, and this policy responds in a manner best suited for Hamilton’s local economic, social and seismic conditions.

3.2 Overall Approach

Council is determined to ensure that Hamilton City is a healthy and safe place to live. For earthquake-prone buildings, this policy is founded on a risk management approach, which requires remedial action where risk to public health and safety is highest. The potential economic and social effects of the policy are then further mitigated by allowing building owners to address any remedial work required over time. This approach was adopted due to Hamilton’s low to moderate seismic risk. The policy also recognises the importance of Hamilton’s heritage buildings to the historical and cultural life of the nation and local community, and the desire to protect the heritage value of these buildings wherever possible, without compromising public health and safety. Council will carry out an initial desktop analysis to identify potential earthquake-prone buildings and will then conduct a number of field evaluations to confirm the accuracy of the desktop analysis. Council will then categorise buildings identified as earthquake-prone based on risk to determine the appropriate course of action. For dangerous and insanitary buildings, the policy will use existing powers in the Building Act 2004 and seek immediate or early resolution of any defect. This approach is taken due to the potential risk to public health or safety. In all cases, Council will work pro-actively with building owners to ensure the best outcome for all parties.


POLICY MANUAL


Page 4

4.0 Application of the Policy – Earthquake-Prone Buildings

The following process provides Council with the ability to take a risk management approach to applying the policy in relation to earthquake-prone buildings:

4.1 Identifying and taking action on earthquake-prone buildings

a. Council will produce a list of potential earthquake-prone buildings using data from Quotable Value New Zealand and Council’s own property information. This list will be based principally on the age of the building and other earthquake engineering factors.

b. Field evaluations and assessments of available records will be undertaken by staff to

further evaluate the accuracy of the list.

c. Council will then complete a desktop analysis using a risk matrix (Appendix Two) based on the New Zealand Society of Earthquake Engineer’s recommendations prepared for the DBH, the fire safety and egress solutions in the Building Code and the policy guidance for territorial authorities produced by the DBH. All buildings on the list will be evaluated against the risk matrix. This evaluation will be completed by 22 December 2006.

d. Council will then categorise potential earthquake-prone buildings into three

categories, based on the potential risk to public safety. All affected building owners will be notified that their building is potentially earthquake-prone by 1 March 2007. This notification will allow a 21-day period in which building owners will have the opportunity to respond to Council and provide appropriate information if they believe that their building should not be classified as earthquake-prone.

CATEGORY 1: Buildings with a score of more than 60 points against the matrix and identified as having a higher risk in a moderate earthquake. Requirements for Category 1 buildings:

Council will require owners to undertake an engineering assessment confirming whether or not the building is earthquake-prone. This assessment is to be submitted to Council by 1 March 2009 (2 years from initial notification).

If no assessment is submitted to Council, Council staff will contact the owner of the building and seek resolution.

If the assessment is not completed within the specified timeframe or if it deems the building to be earthquake-prone, Council will issue a formal notice under Section 124 of the Building Act 2004 requiring the assessment to be completed or outlining the danger to be removed and a timeframe to achieve the desired result.

The notice will require strengthening to at least 33% of the code or better, or demolition by 31 March 2019 (10 years).


POLICY MANUAL


Page 5

CATEGORY 2: Buildings with a score between 40 and 60 points against the matrix and identified as having a lower risk in a moderate earthquake. Requirements for Category 2 buildings:

Council will require owners to undertake an engineering assessment confirming whether or not the building is earthquake-prone. This assessment is to be submitted to Council by 1 March 2010 (3 years from initial notification).

If no assessment is submitted to Council, Council staff will contact the owner of the building and seek resolution.

If the assessment is not completed within the specified timeframe or if it deems the building to be earthquake-prone, Council will issue a formal notice under Section 124 of the Building Act 2004 requiring the assessment to be completed or outlining the danger to be removed and a timeframe to achieve the desired result.

The notice will require strengthening to at least 33% of the code or better, or demolition by 31 March 2030 (20 years).

CATEGORY 3:

Buildings with a score of less than 40 points against the matrix and identified as having a very low risk in a moderate earthquake. Requirements for Category 3 buildings:

Category 3 buildings will be identified as potentially earthquake-prone on Council records. However, building owners may elect to undertake an engineering assessment to confirm whether or not the building is earthquake-prone.

No notice will be served under Section 124 of the Building Act unless the building changes category under the risk matrix.

Elective strengthening or demolition by the owner (no required timeframe).

Timeframes required for strengthening or demolition commence from the date of issue of formal notice. Appendix Three shows an outline implementation programme for each of the three categories.

In situations where earthquake-prone buildings constitute multiple buildings in a

complex, Council will work with the building owner(s) to develop a management plan to achieve the upgrading of the buildings, in which the timeframes for completion of strengthening may differ from the timeframes outlined in Section 4.1 of this policy. However, public health and safety will remain the priority and higher risk aspects of the buildings will still require strengthening under the timeframes outlined in this policy.


POLICY MANUAL


Page 6

4.2 Dealing with building owners

It is Council’s intention to follow a set procedure with all building owners. Notification will initially be given in writing to all owners on Council’s list of buildings advising them that their building is potentially earthquake-prone. This notification will allow a 21-day period in which building owners will have the opportunity to respond to Council and provide appropriate information if they believe that their building should not be classified as earthquake-prone. Where there is a mutual agreement between Council and the building owner and a building consent has been issued to either strengthen or demolish a building, Council may elect to forego the issue of a formal notice, but will retain details of the building in the property file and register. Where a mutually acceptable agreement between the building owner and Council cannot be obtained, Council will exercise its powers and issue a formal notice under Section 124 of the Building Act 2004. The notice will outline the danger to be removed and a timeframe to achieve the desired result.

4.3 Criteria to be used for a full engineering assessment of a building

The definition of an earthquake-prone building is given in Section 122 of the Building Act 2004 and the definition of a moderate earthquake is given in Building Regulation SR 2005/32. Where an owner is required to assess the earthquake-prone status of a building, the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering (NZSEE) Recommendations are the preferred basis for defining technical requirements and criteria. These recommendations are designed to be used in conjunction with AS/NZS 1170 Loadings Standard, NZS 3101 Concrete Structures Standard, NZS 3404 Steel Structures Standard and other materials Standards.

4.4 Interaction between the policy and related sections of the Building Act 2004 – Section

112: Alterations to existing building and Section 115: Change of Use

Where a building consent is received for any alteration, addition or change of use to a building that is included on the list of potential earthquake-prone buildings, a report from a structural engineer will need to be submitted in support of the application. The report must use the criteria specified in Section 4.3 of this policy and identify that the building is:

Of strength greater than 33% of the engineering code and is not considered to be earthquake-prone in terms of the Building Act 2004; or

Include calculations and plans detailing how the building will be upgraded to at least 33% of the engineering code.


POLICY MANUAL


Page 7

In no circumstances will a building consent for any alteration, addition or change of use be issued for an earthquake-prone building unless Council is satisfied that the building has a strengthening programme in place. In all circumstances Council may elect (if it has not already done so) to serve a formal notice on the building owner in terms of Section 124 of the Act advising the owner that the building must be strengthened to at least 33% of the code. The timeframes for strengthening will be the same as those detailed in Section 4.1 of this policy.

5.0 Application of the Policy – Dangerous and Insanitary Buildings 5.1 Identifying and taking action on dangerous and insanitary buildings

Council will respond to building complaints received from the public, the Fire Service, or any person or organisation that has a health and safety interest in a particular building. In all instances Council will investigate the complaint and assess the condition of the building. Council will assess dangerous buildings in accordance with Section 121(1) of the Building Act 2004. Insanitary buildings will be assessed in accordance with Section 123 of the Building Act 2004. Council will take the following action with regard to buildings that are identified as dangerous or insanitary. Priority for action will be decided after investigation of complaints and Fire Service notifications are complete.

Council will liase with the Fire Service to discuss the proposed action when notification has been received from the Fire Service of a dangerous building.

Council will use the powers given in Section 124 of the Building Act 2004 to take action regarding dangerous or insanitary buildings to serve formal notice in accordance with the Building Act 2004 and consider if it should erect a hoarding, fence or warning sign.

Where it is considered measures are necessary to avoid immediate danger or to fix insanitary conditions, Council will use the powers given in section 129 of the Building Act 2004.

In cases where a building is considered to be dangerous because it is likely to collapse (in whole or in part, due to structural condition) potentially causing injury to occupants or persons in areas or buildings adjacent to the building, Council will require the following steps to be undertaken:

the immediate evacuation of the building fencing off of the building shoring up of structures the preparation and implementation of an immediate action plan to ensure

the security of any vacant building.


POLICY MANUAL


Page 8

On being advised of conditions that are alleged to be insanitary within the provisions of section 123 of the Building Act 2004, the buildings will be inspected and a determination made whether action in terms of Sections 124 or 129 of the Building Act 2004 will be taken. (Note: Provisions exist in the Health Act 1956 to deal with nuisance conditions related to certain matters associated with housing, under section 29(f) - overcrowding likely to be injurious to health, or Section 42 - because of insanitary conditions likely to cause injury to the health of persons or dwellings unfit for human habitation).

5.2 Dealing with building owners

It is Council’s intention to follow a set procedure with all building owners. Where there is a mutual agreement between Council and the building owner to rectify any deficiency, Council may elect to forego the issue of a formal notice, but will retain details of the building in the property file and register. Where a mutually acceptable agreement between the building owner and Council cannot be obtained, Council will exercise its powers and issue a formal notice under Section 124 of the Building Act 2004. The notice will outline the danger to be removed and a timeframe to achieve the desired result. However, in urgent cases Council will at the outset serve formal notice under Section 124 of the Act.

6.0 Recording a Building’s Earthquake-Prone, Dangerous or Insanitary Status Council will keep a register of all earthquake-prone, dangerous and insanitary buildings noting the status of requirements for improvement or the results of improvement as applicable. In addition, the following information will be placed on the Land Information Memoranda (LIM) for each earthquake-prone, dangerous or insanitary building:

The address and legal description of the land and building. A statement that the building is considered to be earthquake-prone, dangerous or

insanitary.

The date by which rectification any deficiency, strengthening or demolition is required (only if known).

If a notice under Section 124 is issued in respect of any earthquake-prone, dangerous or insanitary building then a record of that will also be included.

A statement that further details may be available from Council’s property file.


POLICY MANUAL


Page 9

7.0 Access to information Information concerning the earthquake-prone, dangerous or insanitary status of a building (if known) will be contained in the property file and in the GIS system (geographic information system). If a notice under Section 124 is issued in respect of any earthquake-prone, dangerous or insanitary building then a record of that will also be available on the relevant property file. Access to information will be available through a LIM application or request for information in terms of the Official Information and Meetings Act 2002. In general terms, any building owner will be able to access information from Council relating to their building during normal office hours.

8.0 Economic Impact of the Policy The policy advice provided by the Department of Building and Housing makes reference to a 2002 paper - “Strengthening Existing New Zealand Buildings for Earthquake: An analysis of cost benefit using annual probabilities” - based on a report prepared for the Department of Internal Affairs. The paper describes the analysis of the cost/benefit of improving the performance of existing buildings in an earthquake, using a relatively complex model that relies on a number of key inputs. Council has reviewed this paper, which includes information relating to Hamilton and other major centres in New Zealand. At this stage the full implications of the paper and other related studies need to be further scoped and researched in more detail, particularly in relation to the relevant sections of the Building Act 2004. Council recognises that there are likely to be economic costs to some building owners. The full economic impact of the policy will not be known for a number of years, but will be able to be assessed in more detail as potential earthquake-prone buildings are identified, assessed and remedial action undertaken to gain compliance. Council will continue to research the associated economic impacts and will review this policy as and when required.

9.0 Heritage buildings 9.1 Special considerations

Council, in the implementation of procedures under the Building Act 2004 and this policy with regard to dangerous, earthquake-prone, or insanitary buildings, will take into account any special traditional and cultural aspects of the intended use of a building and the need to facilitate the preservation of buildings of significant cultural, historical, or heritage value.


POLICY MANUAL


Page 10

Although Council does not wish to see the intrinsic heritage value of these buildings adversely affected by structural measures, it is also of the view that it is important that heritage buildings do not pose a risk to public health and safety. Heritage buildings will therefore be assessed in the same way as other potential earthquake-prone, dangerous and insanitary buildings and Council will undertake the development of appropriate management and planning for these buildings to ensure their protection wherever possible. This will be achieved by:

Recognising the range of heritage buildings that may exist in the city, including the New Zealand Historic Places Trust (NZHPT) Register, the Heritage Items Schedule of the Hamilton City Proposed District Plan November 2001 (References Version), listed heritage places, buildings of significance to iwi, and other buildings of significance to the community, for example:

i. any listed in a strategy or management plan prepared under the

Conservation Act 1987 or Reserves Act 1977; ii. any within a reserve identified by the Te Turi Whenua Maori Land Act

1993 for historic and cultural purposes; iii. any listed in an iwi management plan; iv. buildings or structures associated with historic cemeteries or memorials; v. any buildings managed for heritage purposes by agencies, such as the

Historic Places Trust, Department of Conservation or by Council; and vi. buildings or structures subject to heritage order, heritage covenant or

other protective covenant.

Ensuring early identification of heritage buildings at risk. Ensuring early consultation with owners of heritage buildings.

Informing and involving relevant statutory organisations, including the NZHPT, with regard to any historic buildings identified as at risk.

Considering heritage values when managing any building identified as at risk. Considering heritage values when developing upgrading proposals. Providing targeted assistance to the owners of heritage buildings.

In relation to any detailed assessment of buildings at risk and in relation to any heritage building, the following matters will be considered:

The heritage significance, integrity and condition of the historic heritage, including any significant components or fabric and features of heritage value.

Any statutory protection, including any listing in the Heritage Items Schedule of the Hamilton City Proposed District Plan November 2001 (References Version), reserve management provision, covenant, heritage order or as an archaeological site under the Historic Places Act 1993.

Any advice from NZHPT or professional conservation organisation, heritage professional, including Council’s own heritage advisers (if relevant).

Any relevant conservation report, conservation plan, condition report, management plan, heritage assessment or other document.


POLICY MANUAL


Page 11

In implementing the provisions of Sections 124-129 of the Building Act, Council will consider alternative methods to avoid unnecessary demolition of heritage buildings, including:

Restricting public access. Erecting public warning signs.

Consulting owners and the NZHPT in relation to any proposed written notice requiring work.

Providing extended timeframes for heritage buildings in relation to any written notice requiring work.

Ensuring that any written notice requiring work provides options to repair the building as appropriate.

Examining options for Council to repair buildings under Section 126 of the Building Act, with negotiation on the terms and methods of recovering costs.

For any notice issued in relation to a heritage building under Section 124 of the Building Act, Council will provide a copy of the notice to the Historic Places Trust. In assessing the upgrading of heritage buildings to meet the Building Act requirements, Council will examine options for compliance with the Building Act and consider the varying effects on the heritage values of the building. In addition, any assessment for the upgrading of heritage buildings will consider the following matters:

Ensuring that all new work involves minimal possible intrusion to the site and the heritage fabric of the building.

Any advice from NZHPT or professional conservation organisation, heritage professional, including Council’s own heritage advisers (if relevant).

In the case of potential earthquake-prone buildings, a management plan will also be

developed for any required structural improvements, in which the timeframes for completion may differ from the timeframes outlined in Section 4.1 of this policy. However, public health and safety will remain the priority and higher risk aspects of the buildings will still require strengthening under the timeframes outlined in Section 4.1.

9.2 Financial assistance for assessment and upgrading of earthquake-prone heritage

buildings

Council acknowledges that the requirement for structural improvements to be undertaken on any building deemed to be earthquake-prone will carry a financial burden for the owner. However, in the case of heritage buildings, Council recognises the importance of these buildings to the historical and cultural life of the nation and local community. Council does not wish to see the intrinsic value of heritage buildings adversely affected by structural improvement measures. In the matter of structural assessments to heritage buildings, Council will meet the costs of an engineering assessment for heritage buildings


POLICY MANUAL


Page 12

included on the New Zealand Historic Places Trust (NZHPT) Register, the Heritage Items Schedule of the Hamilton City Proposed District Plan November 2001 (References Version), listed heritage places, buildings of significance to iwi and other buildings of significance to the community, including:

i. any listed in a strategy or management plan prepared under the

Conservation Act 1987 or Reserves Act 1977; ii. any within a reserve identified by the Te Turi Whenua Maori Land Act

1993 for historic and cultural purposes; iii. any listed in an iwi management plan; iv. buildings or structures associated with historic cemeteries or memorials; v. any buildings managed for heritage purposes by agencies, such as the

Historic Places Trust, Department of Conservation or by Council; and buildings or structures subject to heritage order, heritage covenant or other protective covenant.

10.0 Policy Review

Due to the nature of this policy, Council acknowledges the need for it to be reviewed on an ongoing basis, based on further information becoming available as each stage of the policy is completed. Council may choose to review this policy at any time, however, the first formal review will be in 2009, after the date for engineering assessments to Category One buildings has elapsed (i.e.1 March 2009).


POLICY MANUAL


Page 13

Appendix One Definitions of earthquake-prone, dangerous and insanitary buildings

The definition of an earthquake-prone building is set out in Section 122 of the Building Act 2004 and in the related Building Regulation SR 2005/32 that defines a “moderate earthquake”. Section 121 of the Building Act 2004 defines a dangerous building and Section 123 defines an insanitary building.

1. A building is earthquake-prone for the purposes of this Act (the Building Act 2004) if,

having regard to its condition and to 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); 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. 2. Subsection (1) does not apply to a building that is used wholly or mainly for

residential purposes unless the building: a) comprises 2 or more storeys; and b) contains 3 or more household units.

Earthquake-prone buildings: moderate earthquake defined: For the purposes of section 122 (meaning earthquake-prone building) of the Act (the Building Act 2004), 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 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.

1. A building is dangerous for the purposes of this Act (the Building Act 2004) if: a) in the ordinary course of events (excluding the occurrence of an earthquake), the

building is likely to cause: i. injury or death (whether by collapse or otherwise) to any persons in it or

to persons on other property; or ii. damage to other property; or

b) in the event of fire, injury or death to any persons in the building or to persons on other property is likely because of fire hazard or the occupancy of the building.

2. For the purpose of determining whether a building is dangerous in terms of subsection (1)(b), a territorial authority: a) may seek advice from members of the New Zealand Fire Service who have been

notified to the territorial authority by the Fire Service National Commander as being competent to give advice; and

b) if the advice is sought, must have due regard to the advice.


POLICY MANUAL


Page 14

A building is insanitary for the purposes of this Act (the Building Act 2004) if the building:

a) is offensive or likely to be injurious to health because: i. of how it is situated or constructed; or ii. it is in a state of disrepair; or

b) has insufficient or defective provisions against moisture penetration so as to cause dampness in the building or in any adjoining building; or

c) does not have a supply of potable water that is adequate for its intended use; or d) does not have sanitary facilities that are adequate for its intended use.


POLICY MANUAL


Page 15

Appendix Two

Risk Matrix This risk matrix has been constructed in conjunction with a qualified structural engineer and is based on the New Zealand Society of Earthquake Engineer’s recommendations prepared for the Department of Building and Housing, the fire safety and egress solutions in the Building Code and the policy guidance for territorial authorities produced by the Department of Building and Housing.


POLICY MANUAL


Page 16

Address…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Lot No:……………….. DPS No:……………………………………. Building Consent No:…………………

Building Risk Assessment Earthquake Prone Dangerous and Insanitary Buildings

Risk Factor Rating (H/L) Score Users 1. What is the maximum number of users at any one 100 + people (H) = 10 any one time Less than 100 people (L) = 7

2. What is the predominant age group of the Children or Infants (H) = 10 building users? Adults (L) = 3

3. What is the general capability of the building Mentally handicapped/immobile (H) = 10 users? Physically handicapped but mobile (H) = 6

Normal (L) = 3 Usage of the building 4. What is the sleeping activity rating for the SD, SA, SC, (H) = 10 building in terms of the building code? SR (L) = 3

5. Is the building used for any of the following activities? a. Education Children (H) = 10 Adults (L) = 3 b. Old people's home Geriatric (H) = 10 Mobile (L) = 3 c. Hospital (private or public) Bedridden (H) = 10 Mobile (L) = 3 d. Residential institution Bedridden (H) = 10 Mobile (L) = 3 e. Place of Assembly >100 people (H) = 10 <100 (L) = 3 f. Hotels and motels >20 people (H) = 7 <5 (L) = 3 g. Backpackers and Home stays >20 people (H) = 7 <5 (L) = 3 h. Attached multi-unit buildings >5 apartments (H) = 7 3-5 (L) = 3

6. What is the crowd, working, business or storage WD, WM, CL, CM (H) = 10 activity for the building in terms of the building code? WL, CS (L) = 3

Building Characteristics 7. Does the building have common walls with others? >1 (H) = 5 <1 (L) = 3

8. How many storeys does the building have? 2 = 5 add 5 for every subsequent storey 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 includes basements

9. Any historic clarification or significance? Yes = 2

10. Is the building in the inner city, in a large Yes (H) = 10 development area or of high density?

11. What is the age and condition of the building? Assign score 1-10 accordingly e.g. Pre 1940 = 10

12. Are there any other factors to be considered? e.g. Assign score 1-10 accordingly Parapets, verandahs, attachments or adornments

Total Score (out of approx 100) Note: > 0-60 = Low Risk) < 60 = High Risk)


POLICY MANUAL


Page 17

Appendix Three Outline Implementation Programme – Earthquake-Prone Buildings

Building Category 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029

Category 1 Building owner to obtain an engineering assessment by 1 March 2009

Council to serve notices where necessary

Building owner to take action to improve/demolish the building by 31 March 2019

Category 2 Building owner to obtain an engineering assessment by 1 March 2010

Council to serve notices where necessary

Building owner to take action to improve/demolish the building by 31 March 2030

Category 3 Building owner may elect whether or not they obtain an engineering assessment.

(No notice to be issued unless the building changes category;

elective strenthening or demolition by the owner)

Appendix 2

Appendix 2

mundys

Rectangle

mundys

Rectangle

mundys

Rectangle

mundys

Rectangle

Appendix 2

submission by hamilton city council building (earthquake-prone … · 2014. 5. 2. · building...

Documents