Regulatory Committee
Open Agenda
Meeting Date: |
Tuesday 11 June 2019 |
Time: |
Following the Strategy and Infrastructure Committee meeting |
Venue: |
Council Chamber |
Committee Members |
Councillor Taylor (In the Chair), Acting Mayor White, Councillors Boag, Brosnan, Dallimore, Hague, Jeffery, McGrath, Price, Tapine, Wise and Wright |
Officer Responsible |
Manager Building Consents |
Administration |
Governance Team |
|
Next Regulatory Committee Meeting Tuesday 23 July 2019 |
Regulatory Committee - 11 June 2019 - Open Agenda
ORDER OF BUSINESS
Apologies
Mayor Bill Dalton
Conflicts of interest
Councillor Tony Jeffery in relation to Agenda Item 1: Earthquake-Prone Buildings - Identification of Priority Buildings – Consultation.
Public forum
Nil
Announcements by the Acting Mayor
Announcements by the Chairperson
Announcements by the management
Confirmation of minutes
That the Minutes of the Regulatory Committee meeting held on Tuesday, 30 April 2019 be taken as a true and accurate record of the meeting............................................................................................. 37
Agenda items
1 Earthquake-Prone Buildings - Identification of Priority Buildings - Consultation............... 3
2 Renewal of Licence to Occupy - Sunday Market........................................................... 25
Public Excluded
Nil
Regulatory Committee - 11 June 2019 - Open Agenda Item 1
1. Earthquake-Prone Buildings - Identification of Priority Buildings - Consultation
Type of Report: |
Legal |
Legal Reference: |
Building Act 2004 |
Document ID: |
737346 |
Reporting Officer/s & Unit: |
Malcolm Smith, Manager Building Consents |
1.1 Purpose of Report
The report provides an analysis of submissions received on the Statement of Proposal that will enable Council to identify priority buildings under the earthquake-prone building legislation.
That the Regulatory Committee: a. Receive the submissions on the Earthquake-Prone Buildings – Identification of Priority Buildings Statement of Proposal. b. Adopt the Earthquake-Prone Buildings – Identification of Priority Buildings Statement of Proposal as notified. c. That a DECISION OF COUNCIL is required urgently to enable Council Officers to meet a legislative deadline.
|
That the Council resolve that the officer’s recommendation be adopted.
|
1.2 Background Summary
A national system for identifying, assessing and managing earthquake-prone buildings came into effect on 1 July 2017. It targets buildings or parts of buildings that pose the greatest risk to public safety and other property in a moderate earthquake.
Napier has been categorised as a high seismic risk area which means Council must identify priority buildings within two and a half years and other potentially earthquake-prone buildings within five years of the new legislation coming into effect on 1 July 2017.
The national system introduced the concept of ‘priority buildings’ which are certain types of buildings in high and medium seismic risk areas that are considered to present a higher risk to life or other property because of their construction type, use or location. Priority buildings need to be identified and remediated within half the time allowed for other buildings in the same seismic risk areas. Other buildings, such as unreinforced masonry (URM) buildings, may be considered a priority because, in an earthquake, parts of the building could fall onto thoroughfares with high pedestrian and vehicle traffic.
A Statement of Proposal was prepared under section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002 that presented the following proposal:
Based on there being sufficient traffic and the potential for part of an unreinforced masonry building to fall, Council proposes the following thoroughfares be prioritised.
Napier CBD
a) Shakespeare Road from Hastings Street to Madeira Road
b) Browning Street
c) Herschell Street
d) Cathedral Lane
e) Tennyson Street from Clive Square East to Marine Parade
f) Hastings Street from Shakespeare Road to Sale Street
g) Market Street
h) Dalton Street
i) Clive Square East
j) Emerson Street from Clive Square East to Marine Parade
k) Dickens Street from Munroe Street to Hastings Street
l) Albion Street
m) Station Street from Munroe Street to Hastings Street
n) Vautier Street
o) Raffles Street from Munroe Street to Vautier Street
p) Bower Street
q) Edwardes Street
r) Sale Street
s) Marine Parade from Ocean Spa to Sale Street
t) Munroe Street from Dickens Street to Sale Street
Taradale Shopping Centre
a) Gloucester Street from Northern and Southern junctions with Lee Road
b) Lee Road from Northern and Southern junctions with Gloucester Street
c) Symons Lane
d) White Street from Symons Lane to Gloucester Street
e) Puketapu Road from Symons Lane to Lee Road
Ahuriri Shopping Centre including West Quay
a) Bridge Street from Hardinge Road to Nelson Quay
b) Waghorne Street from Barry Street to Wright Street
c) Barry Street from Waghorne Street to Nelson Quay
d) Routledge Street
e) Nelson Quay from Barry Street to Bridge Street
f) West Quay
Marewa Shopping Centre
a) Kennedy Road from Douglas McLean Avenue to Nuffield Avenue
Onekawa Shopping Centre
a) Maadi Road from 12 Maadi Road to Menin Road
The Statement of Proposal was notified on 6 May 2019. Submissions closed at midday on the 31st May 2019. A Summary of Submissions is included below, with copies of the full submissions provided as Attachment A to this report.
A cautious approach has been taken to the inclusion of areas. Where there is doubt it is recommended that the area be included at this stage of the process, given that the next stage is to investigate individual buildings in each identified area. Therefore, if there is no identified threat from individual earthquake prone buildings in a given area no action will follow and vice versa.
1.3 Summary of Submissions
A total of six (6) submissions were received by 31 May 2019. One of these submissions did not answer any of the questions and has not been considered within the summary. A submission has been received by Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga which states it “does not specifically comment on the proposed routes but focuses on the numerous heritage buildings within the proposed thoroughfares, predominantly in central Napier”. As this submission is out of scope it is not considered in the summary or recommendations below. However, Officers have noted the points raised and will endeavour to keep Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga advised throughout the remaining process.
Below is a summary for each of the identified areas feedback was sought.
Napier CBD
Of the six submissions received, one was in agreement with the identified roads or pathways having sufficient traffic and/or pedestrian activity and three disagreed. Two submissions identified the inclusion of additional roads, being:
· Thackeray Street as a main access road;
· Extending Tennyson Street around to the intersection with Kennedy Road, Station Street and Thackeray Street; and
· Including all of Dickens Street.
Three submissions agreed that roads or pathways identified should be excluded. One of these submissions recommended Cathedral Lane, Herschell Street and Browning Street be excluded from the identified roads. While another recommended all current identified areas be excluded. With another recommending all except a “ring road” of Marine Parade, Sale Street, Munroe Street, Clive Square East and Tennyson Street be excluded.
Officer’s Response to Matters Raised – Napier CBD
After considering the submission points received Officer’s do not agree with the inclusion of additional roads (Thackeray Street, extending Tennyson Street and including all of Dickens Street), as while these access roads may have high traffic volumes it has been determined that there are no unreinforced masonry buildings that would qualify the roads to be included.
With regards to the submission to exclude Cathedral Lane, Herschell Street and Browning Street from the identified area, Officer’s consider this area should continue to be included in the identifiable area to ensure due diligence is completed through the next stage of the process to identify buildings. At this point in time Officers cannot be certain there are no unreinforced masonry buildings within these streets.
Taradale
From the six submissions received, one was in agreement with the identified roads or pathways having sufficient traffic and/or pedestrian activity, while two disagreed. One submitted for all identified roads be excluded, while another submitted for all areas apart from Lee Road to be excluded.
No submission points were made to add any roads or pathways to the Taradale area.
Officer’s Response to Matters Raised – Taradale
After considering the submission points received in relation to the identified roads and pathways in Taradale it is considered appropriate for the current proposal to remain to ensure due diligence is completed through the next stage of the process.
Ahuriri
Two of the submissions received are in disagreement with the identified area in Ahuriri as having sufficient traffic and/or pedestrian activity, while one is in agreement. Three submitters requested roads or pathways that were identified to be excluded, two of which requested all areas to be excluded, while one summited for Barry Street to be excluded.
No submission points were made to add any roads or pathways to the Ahuriri area.
Officer’s Response to Matters Raised – Ahuriri
After considering the submission points received in relation to the identified roads and pathways in Ahuriri it is considered appropriate for the current proposal to remain to ensure due diligence is completed through the next stage of the process.
Marewa
From the submissions received two were in agreement with the identified area in Marewa as having sufficient traffic and/or pedestrian activity while one is in disagreement. Two submission points were made for the current identified area to be excluded.
No submission points were made to add any roads or pathways to the Marewa area.
Officer’s Response to Matters Raised – Marewa
After considering the submission points received it is not considered reasonable to exclude the Marewa area due to buildings being far enough away from the road especially given the high pedestrian activity.
Officer’s consider this area should continue to be included in the identifiable area to ensure due diligence is completed through the next stage of the process to identify buildings. At this point in time Officers cannot be certain there are no unreinforced masonry buildings within these streets.
Onekawa
Two of the submissions are in disagreement with the identified area in Onekawa as having sufficient traffic and/or pedestrian activity, while one is in agreement. Three of the submitters requested for the current identified area to be excluded.
No submission points were made to add any roads or pathways to the Onekawa area.
Officer’s Response to Matters Raised – Onekawa
After considering the submission points received it is not considered reasonable to exclude the Onekawa area due to buildings being far enough away from the road especially due to high pedestrian activity.
Officer’s consider this area should continue to be included in the identifiable area to ensure due diligence is completed through the next stage of the process to identify buildings. At this point in time Officers cannot be certain there are no unreinforced masonry buildings within these streets.
Traffic routes of Strategic Importance
Three submissions received agreed there are no transport routes of strategic importance with unreinforced masonry buildings that could cause obstructions, while 3 submitters did not answer this question. One additional comment was received which has not been considered as part of this process as it is not relevant.
1.4 Significance and Engagement
The Special Consultative Procedure was undertaken on this matter as required by the Building Act 2004. A Statement of Proposal was prepared and housed on the Say it Napier website for public feedback. In addition, several stakeholders were identified as having a special interest in the matter, particularly building owners and/or operators, and were advised directly of the consultation and invited to make a submission. They were:
· Engineering New Zealand (Hawke’s Bay)
· Art Deco Trust
· Historic Places Aotearoa (Hawke’s Bay)
· Napier City Business Inc
· Taradale Marketing Association
· Ahuriri Business Association
· Hawke’s Bay Tourism
· Business Hawke’s Bay
· Contacts for Marewa and Onekawa Shopping Centres
In addition to the direct contact with these membership groups and stakeholders, the consultation was advertised to the wider community through print and digital promotion.
1.5 Options
The options available to Council are as follows:
a. Adopt the proposal put forward in the Statement of Proposal – Based on there being sufficient traffic and the potential for part of an unreinforced masonry building to fall, Council proposes the identified thoroughfares be prioritised.
b. Amend the proposal put forward in the Statement of Proposal.
c. Reject the proposal put forward in the Statement of Proposal.
1.6 Development of Preferred Option
The option to adopt the proposal put forward in the Statement of Proposal will enable the Council to carry out its duty under the Building Act as follows:
Council will employ a retired Napier City Council Building Consents Officer to identify potentially earthquake-prone buildings and priority buildings using the Earthquake-prone Building Methodology.
Affected building owners will be notified that their buildings are potentially earthquake-prone. Owners of potentially earthquake-prone buildings, whether a priority building or not, have 12 months to provide an engineering assessment.
Once this assessment is received, Council will determine if the building is classified as earthquake-prone, and notify the building owner of its decision.
If a building on one of the proposed thoroughfares is constructed of unreinforced masonry and confirmed, earthquake-prone then it will be considered a priority building and the timeframe to remediate will be 7.5 years instead of 15 years.
a Submissions received ⇩
Regulatory Committee - 11 June 2019 - Open Agenda Item 2
2. Renewal of Licence to Occupy - Sunday Market
Type of Report: |
Operational |
Legal Reference: |
Reserves Act 1977 |
Document ID: |
736053 |
Reporting Officer/s & Unit: |
Fleur Lincoln, Strategic Planning Lead |
2.1 Purpose of Report
The purpose of this report is to obtain approval in principle the granting of a Licence to Occupy agreement with Margaret Habib of the Sunday Market for the carpark within the Marine Parade foreshore north of Ocean Spa for a term of three (3) years, subject to the s.54(1)(d) Reserves Act 1977 process being successfully completed.
That the Regulatory Committee: a. Approve in principle, the granting of a Licence to Occupy to Margaret Carolyn Habib for a term of three (3) years, subject to the s.54(1)(d) Reserves Act 1977 process being successfully completed. |
That the Council resolve that the officer’s recommendation be adopted. |
2.2 Background Summary
On the 11th October 2016, Council entered into a Licence to Occupy (LTO) agreement with Margaret Carolyn Habib for the Marine Parade foreshore carpark located immediately north of the Ocean Spa complex. The LTO provided approximately 2,640m2 of land within the car park that serves Marine Parade foreshore reserve north of the Ocean Spa complex to be occupied for use of the market, operating between 8am and 1pm each Sunday. The LTO required the market to relocate to an alternative venue as required by Council (typically when the venue was booked for large events). The LTO was for a term of 12 months.
During the term of the LTO, and for a period of time following it, The Licence holder worked together with Council to address a number of concerns relating to traffic and pedestrian safety and nuisance. The LTO was rolled over while these issues were resolved. A traffic safety assessment has been carried out on the operation and mitigation measures employed to an extent deemed satisfactory. As such, it is now appropriate to issue a new LTO to the licence holder for a period of three years, and to make changes to the hours of operation to reflect those that actually occur.
Legal advice has been sought on the renewal of this LTO. The LTO must be granted under section 54(1)(d) of the Reserves Act, which requires public notification, and approval of the Department of Conservation. The current LTO was issued as a temporary arrangement, as a means to trial this location before locking in a more permanent arrangement. The current LTO is attached as Appendix 1, with tracked changes providing an indication of the likely changes that will be made to the new LTO.
In addition, a new alternative venue, Anderson Park, has been trialled successfully, and will become the new alternative venue for those dates that the market is required to relocate. Use of the alternative venue is subject to the ground conditions being favourable, and no other event being booked for the space. An aerial showing the location and extent of the alternative venue is provided in Appendix 2.
2.3 Issues
No issues.
2.4 Significance and Engagement
Section 54(1)(d) of the Reserves Act requires this LTO request to be publicly notified, and for approval to be sought and obtained from the Department of Conservation. This will give an opportunity to the public to make submissions for or against, and for these to be heard in a public forum. The LTO holder Margaret Habib has been notified of this process.
2.5 Implications
Financial
The LTO currently sets a rental for the site at $200 per week plus GST. This will be continue to be the means for charging a fair fee for the use of this reserve.
Social & Policy
The Sunday Market provides the community with both an opportunity for small business and for social and cultural exchange. The Market adds vibrancy to the city fringe. The operation of the market is consistent with the City Vision’s goal of a vibrant and thriving city centre.
The LTO is not inconsistent with the Reserve Management Plan and is consistent with the Napier Marine Parade Foreshore Reserve Business Concessions Policy.
The Draft Open Space Strategy is near completion. The reserve management plan for the Marine Parade Foreshore Reserve will be a high priority.
Risk
Risk to Council is low. The LTO specifies conditions that will ensure the operation and nature of the goods being sold do not cause a hazard or nuisance to any party; that the operation does not damage the reserve; that the operation must be related to an alternative venue if necessary, and that enables either party to terminate the LTO with notice. Council will continue to monitor the effects of the Market, and will work with the licence holder to address any issues.
2.6 Options
The options available to Council are as follows:
a. Approve in principle, the granting of a Licence to Occupy to Margaret Carolyn Habib for a term of 3 years, subject to the s.54(1)(d) Reserves Act 1977 process being successfully completed;
b. Do not approve in principle, the granting of a Licence to Occupy to Margaret Carolyn Habib for a term of 3 years, subject to the s.54(1)(d) Reserves Act 1977 process being successfully completed.
2.7 Development of Preferred Option
The Sunday Market is an asset to the city, and any safety or nuisance effects can be adequately managed by the conditions of the Licence, and through working in partnership with the licence holder. Legal advice sought advises Council to notify the intention to issue a LTO under section 54(1)(d) of the Reserves Act.
a LTO with tracked Changes ⇩
b Alternative Venue Aerial ⇩
Regulatory Committee - 11 June 2019 - Open Agenda
Regulatory Committee
Open Minutes
Meeting Date: |
Tuesday 30 April 2019 |
Time: |
3.00pm - 3.11pm |
Venue |
Council Chamber |
Present |
Councillor Taylor (In the Chair), Acting Mayor White, Councillors Boag, Brosnan, Dallimore, Hague, Jeffery, McGrath, Price, Tapine and Wright |
In Attendance |
Chief Executive, Director Corporate Services, Director Community Services, Director Infrastructure Services, Director City Strategy, Manager Communications and Marketing, Manager Building Consents, Manager Regulatory Solutions/ Business Excellence & Transformation |
Administration |
Governance Team |
Apologies
Acting Mayor White / Councillor Brosnan That the apologies from Mayor Dalton and Councillor Wise be accepted. Carried |
Conflicts of interest
Councillor Jeffery declared an interest in agenda item 1 and in order to manage this interest requested his Deputy to act as presiding member for the meeting and did not participate in the vote.
Councillor Wright declared an interest in agenda item 2 as the family in question are personal family friends. It was not considered that this interest required active management in this meeting.
Announcements by the Acting Mayor
The Acting Mayor noted that she has spoken to the Headmaster of Puketapu School to offer Council’s support to the local community following the tragic accident over the weekend, and advised that a “Give a little” page will be created shortly for the family by the school.
Announcements by the Chairperson
Nil
Announcements by the management
The Chief Executive advised that Rachael Horton has been appointed the new Manager Regulatory Solutions and will be transferring from her current role of Manager Business Excellence and Transformation.
Confirmation of minutes
Councillors Boag / Wright That the Minutes of the meeting held on 19 February 2019 were taken as a true and accurate record of the meeting.
Carried |
Agenda Items
1. Earthquake-Prone Buildings - Identification of Priority Buildings - Consultation
Type of Report: |
Legal |
Legal Reference: |
Building Act 2004 |
Document ID: |
726241 |
Reporting Officer/s & Unit: |
Malcolm Smith, Manager Building Consents |
1.1 Purpose of Report
To advise Council of the requirements under the Building Act 2004 in relation to the identification of priority buildings under the earthquake-prone building legislation, and to seek approval to release the draft Statement of Proposal for public submissions prior to adoption by Council.
At the Meeting The Manager Building Consents gave a broad overview noting that Council is meeting legislative requirements to consult on this matter. Council officers have initially identified priority areas of risk, and the draft Statement of Proposal has been prepared for public consultation to ensure that all priority areas have been included. In response to questions from Councillors the following points were clarified: · Maraenui and Greenmeadows are not identified as priority areas as Council officers do not believe that any unreinforced masonry buildings are located in those areas. It is anticipated that any areas that the public believe have been incorrectly assessed or overlooked will be identified through the consultation process. · No priority buildings have been identified at this stage. Once the priority areas have been confirmed, the priority buildings within these will be identified and building owners will be contacted at that time. Most building owners will already know whether they are likely to be affected or not. · Due to the 1931 Earthquake, Napier’s building stock is relatively modern and a number of buildings have already been assessed and upgraded. · Council officers will liaise with the Business Associations located in the identified priority areas, the local branch of Engineering NZ will engage with Historic Places and Art Deco Trust (if necessary) once the priority buildings have been identified. · Owners of heritage buildings may be able to apply for some dispensations under the Building Act.
|
Committee's recommendation Councillors Brosnan / Hague That the Regulatory Committee: a. Approve the release of the draft Statement of Proposal for public submissions.
Councillor Jeffery did not participate in the vote due to a declared interest Carried |
2. Street Naming - 250 Guppy Road Taradale Napier
Type of Report: |
Procedural |
Legal Reference: |
N/A |
Document ID: |
723801 |
Reporting Officer/s & Unit: |
Paul O'Shaughnessy, Team Leader Resource Consents |
2.1 Purpose of Report
The purpose of this report is to obtain Councils approval for one new street name to replace a previously approved street name within the recently approved residential subdivisions at 250 Guppy Road. The street in question has already been subject to a previous street name approval by Council (Chue Court), however a mistake by the developer has led to a request for a re-naming to Gee Place.
At the Meeting Councillors agreed that Gee Place was an appropriate name for the street. |
Committee's recommendation Acting Mayor White / Councillor Tapine That the Regulatory Committee: a. Approve one new street name at 250 Guppy Road as follows: · Gee Place-250 Guppy Road
b. That a DECISION OF COUNCIL is required urgently as Council have recently issued Section 224 certification for the subdivision at 250 Guppy Road and the developers require certainty for the purposes of marketing, physical street naming and property addressing.
Carried |
Council Resolution |
Councillors Brosnan / Hague That Council: a. Approve one new street name at 250 Guppy Road as follows: · Gee Place-250 Guppy Road
Carried |
The meeting closed at 3.11pm.
Approved and adopted as a true and accurate record of the meeting.
Chairperson .............................................................................................................................
Date of approval ...................................................................................................................... |