Regional Strategy and Policy Committee 04.14

8/12/2019 Regional Strategy and Policy Committee 04.14

1/22

Note: The reports contained within this agenda are for consideration and should not be construed as Council policyunless and until adopted. Should Members require further information relating to any reports, please contactthe relevant manager, Chairperson or Deputy Chairperson.

I hereby give notice that an ordinary meeting of the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee willbe held on:

Date:Time:Meeting Room:Venue:

Thursday, 3 April 20149.30amReception LoungeAuckland Town Hall301-305 Queen StreetAuckland

Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

OPEN AGENDA

MEMBERSHIP

Chairperson Cr George Wood, CNZMDeputy Chairperson Cr Anae Arthur AnaeMembers Cr Cameron Brewer Cr Mike Lee

Mayor Len Brown, JP Kris MacDonaldCr Dr Cathy Casey Cr Calum PenroseCr Bill Cashmore Cr Dick QuaxCr Ross Clow Cr Sharon Stewart, QSMCr Linda Cooper, JP Cr Sir John Walker, KNZM, CBECr Chris Darby Cr Wayne WalkerCr Alf Filipaina Cr John WatsonCr Hon Chris Fletcher, QSO Cr Penny WebsterCr Penny Hulse Glenn WilcoxCr Denise Krum

(Quorum 11 members)

Barbara WatsonDemocracy Advisor

27 March 2014

Contact Telephone: (09) 307 7629Email: [email protected]: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz


2/22

a)

TERMS OF REFERENCE

Responsibilities

This committee will deal with all strategy and policy decision-making that is not the responsibility ofanother committee or the Governing Body i.e. strategies and policies associated with environmental,

social, economic and cultural activities. Key responsibilities will include:

Final approval of strategies and policies not the responsibility of other committees or theGoverning Body

Setting/ approving the policy work programme for Reporting Committees

Overviewing strategic projects, for example, the Southern Initiative (except those that are theresponsibility of the Auckland Development Committee)

Implementation of the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan

Operational matters including:

o Acquisition and disposal of property relating to the committees responsibilities

o Stopping of roads

o Public Works Act matters

Powers

(i) All powers necessary to perform the committees responsibilities.

Except:

(a) powers that the Governing Body cannot delegate or has retained to itself (see GoverningBody responsibilities)

(b) where the committees responsibility is limited to making a recommendation only

(ii) Approval of a submission to an external body

(iii) Powers belonging to another committee, where it is necessary to make a decision prior to thenext meeting of that other committee.

(iv) Power to establish subcommittees.


3/22


03 April 2014

Page 3

ITEM TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE

1 Apologies 5

2 Declaration of Interest 5

3 Confirmation of Minutes 5

4 Petitions 5

5 Public Input 5

6 Local Board Input 5

7 Extraordinary Business 6

8 Notices of Motion 6

9 Obtain approval for Auckland Councils submission on the Buildings

(Earthquake Prone Building) Amendment Bill 7

10 Wynyard Quarter Innovation Precinct implementation progress update

report 13

11 Consideration of Extraordinary Items

PUBLIC EXCLUDED

12 Procedural Motion to Exclude the Public 21

C1 Acquisition of Land for Stormwater Purposes 21

C2 St James Theatre 21


4/22


5/22


03 April 2014

Page 5

1 Apologies

At the close of the agenda no apologies had been received.

2 Declaration of Interest

Members are reminded of the need to be vigilant to stand aside from decision makingwhen a conflict arises between their role as a member and any private or other externalinterest they might have.

3 Confirmation of Minutes

That the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee:

a) confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Thursday, 6 March 2014,including the confidential section, as a true and correct record.

4 Petitions

At the close of the agenda no requests to present petitions had been received.

5 Public Input

Standing Order 3.21 provides for Public Input. Applications to speak must be made to theCommittee Secretary, in writing, no later than two (2)working days prior to the meetingand must include the subject matter. The meeting Chairperson has the discretion to

decline any application that does not meet the requirements of Standing Orders. Amaximum of thirty (30) minutesis allocated to the period for public input with five (5)minutes speaking time for each speaker.

At the close of the agenda no requests for public input had been received.

6 Local Board Input

Standing Order 3.22 provides for Local Board Input. The Chairperson (or nominee of thatChairperson) is entitled to speak for up to five (5)minutes during this time. TheChairperson of the Local Board (or nominee of that Chairperson) shall wherever practical,

give two (2)days notice of their wish to speak. The meeting Chairperson has thediscretion to decline any application that does not meet the requirements of StandingOrders.

This right is in addition to the right under Standing Order 3.9.14 to speak to matters on theagenda.

At the close of the agenda no requests for local board input had been received.


6/22


03 April 2014

Page 6

7 Extraordinary Business

Section 46A(7) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (asamended) states:

An item that is not on the agenda for a meeting may be dealt with at that meeting if-

(a) The local authority by resolution so decides; and

(b) The presiding member explains at the meeting, at a time when it is open to thepublic,-

(i) The reason why the item is not on the agenda; and

(ii) The reason why the discussion of the item cannot be delayed until asubsequent meeting.

Section 46A(7A) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (asamended) states:

Where an item is not on the agenda for a meeting,-

(a) That item may be discussed at that meeting if-

(i) That item is a minor matter relating to the general business of the localauthority; and

(ii) the presiding member explains at the beginning of the meeting, at a timewhen it is open to the public, that the item will be discussed at the meeting;

but

(b) no resolution, decision or recommendation may be made in respect of that itemexcept to refer that item to a subsequent meeting of the local authority for furtherdiscussion.

8 Notices of Motion

At the close of the agenda no requests for notices of motion had been received.


7/22

Item9


03 April 2014

Obtain approval for Auckland Councils submission on the Buildings (Earthquake Prone Building)Amendment Bill

Page 7

Obtain approval for Auckland Councils submission on the Buildings(Earthquake Prone Building) Amendment Bill

File No.:CP2014/04090

Purpose1. This report summarises the Auckland Council proposed submission to the Local

Government and Environment Committee on the Building (Earthquake-Prone Buildings)Amendment Bill 2013. The government has introduced legislation into Parliament to changethe system for managing earthquake prone buildings. The changes follow recommendationsby the Canterbury Earthquakes Royal Commission and a comprehensive review [includingconsultation] by the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment (MBIE).

Executive Summary2. The Building (Earthquake-Prone Buildings) Amendment Bill 2013 has passed its first reading

and has been referred to the Local Government and Environment Select Committee. The Bill

is open for public written submissions up to Thursday 17 April 2014.

3. The Bill itself broadly reflects recommendations in Volume 4 (Earthquake-Prone Buildings)of the Canterbury Earthquakes Royal Commission. It also responds to feedback MBIEreceived through the public consultation process it conducted in 2013 on thoserecommendations.

4. We strongly support this initiative by Central Government. Great work has been done withina short period of time which we believe will have a positive effect on the integrity of buildingsand enhance the safety of people using these buildings.

5. Our proposed submission reflects support for many of the key amendments in the proposal.However, we recommend that further research is conducted to assure Aucklanders that any

investment in seismic upgrading is warranted in the context of Aucklands seismicityprojections. We also recognise that Auckland may be impacted by other natural events suchas tsunami and volcanoes and we would like to see a system that embodies a broaderconsideration of potential sources of risk to our building stock.

6. We continue to advocate for a balance to be achieved between risk and investment toensure that, as a society, we are obtaining the most practicable outcomes for our communityin terms of safety enhancement, cost minimisation, and heritage preservation.

7. The proposed submission document is still being finalised and will be tabled at thecommittee meeting. The substantive content of the submission document is containedwithin this report.

Recommendation/sThat the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee:

a) approve the document prepared for submission to the Local Government andEnvironment Committee on the Building (Earthquake-Prone Buildings) Amendment Bill2013

b) request that officers of Auckland Councils Building Control Department be grantedapproval to represent Auckland Council before the select committee and make an oralpresentation on the submission

c) authorise the Civil Defence and Emergency Management Director to representcouncil's views on comparative risk with the select committee.


8/22

Item9


03 April 2014


Page 8

Discussion8. Since the current provisions relating to seismic upgrading of buildings were introduced in the

Building Act 2004, there has been on-going discussion at national and local level aroundhow the system might be further improved. Issues associated with regional inconsistency,limited powers to address issues and a perceived lack of appropriate implementation toolshave formed the crux of many of these discussions.

9. Following the earthquake events of 2010-2011 in Christchurch, and the subsequent RoyalCommission review, there has been the opportunity and the impetus to comprehensivelyaddress these problem areas. While the Royal Commissions final report covered a widerange of topics related to the events in Canterbury, Volume 4 in particular focused onEarthquake-Prone Buildings and the policies that related to their identification andmanagement.

10. Volume 4 formed the basis for MBIEs stakeholder consultation that led to the developmentof the present amendment bill. Auckland Councils submissions on both the RoyalCommission review and the MBIE consultation were well received, and the changes thatresulted have reflected our input to date. The specific nature of our submission is focusedmostly on requesting clarity on some of the points in the proposed Amendment Bill.

11. While developing our submission we took into account the following factors:

Conclusions drawn from hazard research by GNS Science are that the seismic risk toAuckland is of a significantly low level as to warrant restraint when considering the extentof building strengthening required in the region. The research by GNS Science (February2014) includes estimated damage and casualties from earthquakes affecting Auckland.The reports will be made available to the select committee if requested.

Implementation of a level of strengthening should reasonably take into account allavailable scientific knowledge to ensure a regionally appropriate approach that iseconomically and socially justifiable.

The risk of earthquakes to Auckland ought to be viewed in comparison to other potentialnatural disasters of greater hazard to the region, such as tornados, landslides, volcanoesand tsunamis.

12. We are also aware that our submission focusses on an Auckland perspective and that ourenvironmental, and economic factors are different to other parts of the country i.e. what ispractical for Auckland, might be impractical for others. Our view is that the final outcome ofthe legislative change should be a system that will function well, not only for the likes ofAuckland and other metropolitan centres, but for smaller rural centres as well.

13. The key amendments proposed in the Bill include:

Assessments and timeframes - Requiring territorial authorities to assess allcommercial and large residential buildings in their jurisdiction within 5 years of thelegislation being passed, using a methodology to be specified by the Ministry ofBusiness, Innovation and Employment. Reduction of the period to upgrade anearthquake prone building to a nationally consistent 15 years.

National database- The creation of a unified national database for recording buildingseismic performance data including for example, building age, structure, andperformance ratings.

Level of strengthening - Clarification that an earthquake prone building or anearthquake prone component of a building is anything less than 34 per cent of the NewBuilding Standard (NBS.)

National policythe Bill provides for a greater role for central government to monitor

performance of territorial authorities in enacting the requirements of this legislation, andthe increased provision of direction and guidance from central government.


9/22

Item9


03 April 2014


Page 9

Heritage exemptionsCategory 1 Historic Places may be granted an additional 10years for necessary strengthening work to be completed.

PrioritiesCertain classes of building yet to be defined in regulations will be recognisedas a priority for upgrading and the timeframes for their upgrading reduced to reflect therisk associated with a failure of such a building.

Low-risk exemptionsCertain classes of building that may be seen to represent a lowrisk to occupants may be exempted from the requirement to strengthen to the nationalstandard.

Accessibility and fire safety exemptions territorial authorities (that are BuildingConsent Authorities) are to be granted the ability to issue building consents for thespecific seismic strengthening of earthquake-prone buildings without requiring otherupgrades (for access and facilities for people with disabilities and for means of escapefrom fire).

14. Key elements of our submission, in response to these amendments, and developed inconsultation with key stakeholders, are summarised as:

Assessments and timeframesWe support the intended 5 and 15-year timeframesrespectively for assessment and completion of retrofitting. However, we encouragecentral government to strongly consider the implementation of support mechanisms toassist building owners.

National databaseWe agree that a national database would provide benefit throughefficiency and scale.

Level of strengthening Clear technical guidance based on up-to-date research isrequired in regard to the application of a percentage-based threshold for seismicupgrading to regions of low seismic risk. Research from GNS Science indicates that inAuckland there will be little benefit to the community in upgrading buildings to 34 percent NBS. The cost of upgrading affected building stock in Auckland would be

substantial.We prefer a focus on reducing the risk of building features falling from the building. Suchan event, involving verandas, parapets, facades and heavy ornaments, could betriggered by factors that are non-seismic in nature. Buildings that may have an NBSrating may still need attention to such features which the proposed approach could fail toaddress.

National policywe support for a national approach as long as it reflects the varyingrisk across the country and the provision for local discretion to be applied.

Heritage consideration Heritage preservation needs to be maintained and equallybalanced with safety considerations and cost implications. There needs to be further

clarity around what can be considered heritage for the purposes of this Bill, as at presentbuildings deemed such under a unitary or district plan do not appear to be covered.

Processing timeframesAuckland Council does not support the establishment of animposed timeframe (20 working days) for regulatory staff to process seismicperformance reports to a register.

Placarding requirements Auckland Council does not support the requirement toplace placards on any buildings deemed earthquake-prone. The exceptions to this iswhere the timeframe for compliance with an EPB notice has expired, or where theterritorial authority is responsible for a region of high seismic risk and the placardingapproach has been approved through a local consultative process.


10/22

Item9


03 April 2014


Page 10

Notification requirementsPresently the issuing of any official notice under Section124 of the Building Act requires copies of the notice to be sent to any parties with aninterest in the site. This has to date been found to be onerous to carry out on a largescale, especially in regard to multi-tenanted body corporate type structures, and we donot support this approach to notification. We prefer an approach that requires notificationof an entity such as a Body Corporate, with requirements that the entity concerned

notifies individual owners. Fines on non-compliant building ownersAuckland Council supports the extension

of enforcement powers to allow territorial authorities to fine owners and persons whocommit an offence in relation to the provisions of this Bill.

Action to be taken upon conclusion of timeframes Auckland Council does notsupport the forcible demolition of an earthquake-prone building at the conclusion of theupgrading timeframe, but would rather have the power to cordon and shutdown thestructure instead.

PrioritiesAuckland Council supports certain classes of buildings as being recognisedas a priority for upgrading and the timeframes for their upgrading reduced to reflect the

risk associated with a failure of such a building. Low-risk exemptionsAuckland Council supports certain classes of buildings, seen to

represent a low risk to occupants, being able to be exempted from the requirement tostrengthen to the national standard.

Accessibility and fire safety exemptionsAuckland Council supports in principle theamendment for territorial authorities (that are Building Consent Authorities) to be grantedthe ability to issue building consents for the specific seismic strengthening ofearthquake-prone buildings without requiring other upgrades (for access and facilities forpeople with disabilities and for means of escape from fire). However we have concernsthat these exemptions may be used by building owners to avoid making otherwiserequired improvements to the accessibility of their buildings.

15. Additional matters that we have submitted on are:

Provisional assessmentsAuckland Council provides a time period in which reportswe conduct are in a provisional state and open to input by the building owner to assistwith filling in gaps in our knowledge about particular buildings. We wish to see thatallowance for reports in such a format is maintained.

Cessation of existing policyProvision needs to be ensured that existing policies andaction taken under them can either be grandfathered or converted in such a way as tonot undermine the intent of previous regulatory action.

Targeted strengthening- We support the recommendations enabling the upgrading ofspecific at risk parts of buildings to a specified level, not just the building in general.

16. The Auckland Council submission has been prepared, in consultation with stakeholdergroups, to help inform the process to improve the state of the national earthquake-pronebuilding system. The submission reflects the general views of our stakeholders, with theexception of the Accessibility and Fire Safety ExemptionsCouncils Disability StrategicAdvisory Panel disagree that these exemptions are warranted. We continue to encourage arecognition of expert engineering and geological science in informing regulatory actions, aswell as a reasoned appreciation of the financial and heritage concerns that also play a part.It is necessary to ensure we achieve a regulatory framework that balances safetyenhancement, cost minimisation, and heritage preservation considerations.


11/22

Item9


03 April 2014


Page 11

Consideration

Local Board Views

17. Informal consultation has been engaged in with the local boards over the last 3 yearsregarding the matter of earthquake-prone buildings and Auckland Council policy.

Maori Impact Statement18. This policy submission has no specific impact upon Maori different to the general populace.

General

19. Regardless of the content of Auckland Councils submission to the select committee, theresult of this consultation process will result in legislative and regulatory framework change,resulting in a need for Aucklands earthquake-prone building policy revision well ahead ofthe 5 year review period we presently work to. Based on legislative change timeframes theCouncil may anticipate the need to revise its current earthquake prone building policy in late2014.

Implementation Issues20. The submission (circulated under separate cover) will need to be made by 17 April 2014 as

required by the Local Government and Environment Committee. Failure to do so will meanthat Auckland Councils input on the future direction of Earthquake-Prone Building policyacross the country will be limited.

21. Specific implementation issues will need to be considered once the amendment to theBuilding Act legislation has been enacted.

Attachments

The proposed submission document is still being finalised and will be circulated under separatecover.

Signatories

Authors Patrick Cummuskey, Special projects policy advisor

Authorisers Ian McCormick - Manager Building Control

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer


12/22


13/22

Item1

0


03 April 2014

Wynyard Quarter Innovation Precinct implementation progress update report Page 13

Wynyard Quarter Innovation Precinct implementation progress updatereport

File No.:CP2014/05286

Purpose1. The purpose of this report is to supply an implementation progress update on the Wynyard

Quarter Innovation Precinct, as prepared by Auckland Tourism, Events and EconomicDevelopment Limited (ATEED) which is provided at Attachment A to this report.

2. Officers from ATEED will be in attendance at the meeting and will answer questions on thereport, which was written and authorised by the following:

Authors Tracy MoyesProject Manager, ATEED

Sarah Johnstone-Smith - Principal Advisor Regional Economic PolicyDevelopment

Authorisers Patrick McVeighGeneral Manager Economic Growth, ATEED

Brett ORiley, Chief Executive, ATEED

Recommendation/sThat the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee:

a) receive the Wynyard Quarter Innovation Precinct implementation progress updatereport (Attachment A) from Auckland Tourism, Events and Economic DevelopmentLimited

b) note the progress on the implementation of the Wynyard Quarter Innovation Precinctas outlined in the report at Attachment A.

Attachments

No. Title Page

A Wynyard Quarter Innovation Precinct implementation progress updatereport

15

Signatories

Authors Sarah Johnstone-Smith - Principal Advisor Regional Economic Policy

DevelopmentAuthorisers Harvey Brookes - Manager Economic Development

Roger Blakeley - Chief Planning Officer

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer


14/22


15/22

AttachmentA

Item1

0


03 April 2014



16/22

AttachmentA

Item10


03 April 2014



17/22

AttachmentA

Item1

0


03 April 2014



18/22

AttachmentA

Item10


03 April 2014



19/22

AttachmentA

Item1

0


03 April 2014



20/22

AttachmentA

Item10


03 April 2014



21/22


03 April 2014

Public Excluded Page 21

Exclusion of the Public: Local Government Official Informationand Meetings Act 1987

That the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee:

a) exclude the public from the following part(s) of the proceedings of this meeting.

The general subject of each matter to be considered while the public is excluded, the reason forpassing this resolution in relation to each matter, and the specific grounds under section 48(1) ofthe Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolutionfollows.

This resolution is made in reliance on section 48(1)(a) of the Local Government OfficialInformation and Meetings Act 1987 and the particular interest or interests protected by section 6 orsection 7 of that Act which would be prejudiced by the holding of the whole or relevant part of theproceedings of the meeting in public, as follows:

C1 Acquisition of Land for Stormwater Purposes

Reason for passing thisresolution in relation to eachmatter

Particular interest(s) protected (whereapplicable)

Ground(s) under section 48(1)for the passing of this resolution

The public conduct of the part ofthe meeting would be likely toresult in the disclosure ofinformation for which goodreason for withholding existsunder section 7.

s7(2)(h) - The withholding of the informationis necessary to enable the local authority tocarry out, without prejudice or disadvantage,commercial activities.

In particular, the report contains informationon a property which council proposes topurchase and which may influence propertyvalues.

s48(1)(a)


C2 St James Theatre

Reason for passing thisresolution in relation to eachmatter

Particular interest(s) protected (whereapplicable)

Ground(s) under section 48(1)for the passing of this resolution


s7(2)(b)(i) - The withholding of theinformation is necessary to protectinformation where the making available ofthe information would disclose a trade secret.

s7(2)(c)(i) - The withholding of theinformation is necessary to protectinformation which is subject to an obligationof confidence or which any person has been

or could be compelled to provide under theauthority of any enactment, where themaking available of the information would belikely to prejudice the supply of similarinformation or information from the samesource and it is in the public interest thatsuch information should continue to besupplied.

s7(2)(i) - The withholding of the information isnecessary to enable the local authority tocarry on, without prejudice or disadvantage,negotiations (including commercial andindustrial negotiations).

In particular, the report contains informationrelative to negotiations currently underwaywith the owner of the St James Theatre.

s48(1)(a)



22/22


03 April 2014

Regional Strategy and Policy Committee 04.14

Documents

Transcript of Regional Strategy and Policy Committee 04.14