18 January 2023
Media: NZME (Rotorua Daily Post and BOP Times)
Topic: Blue Baths
Enquiry
I was speaking with Jo Romanes from Blue Baths and I had some questions if someone could please help me out with them.
Are there any Rotorua buildings not on the register that are earthquake prone? Are any of the listings not up to date? (I.e. ratings)
Why is Blue Baths not listed on here?
How many buildings are left to be assessed? (deadline for doing so being 2027 I believe) Any priority buildings left?
How many of those notified (priority and not priority) have completed a detailed assessment?
Pak N’ Save has been identified as earthquake prone and has been notified as such. The listing on the register does not have an earthquake rating but I see its notice [on the building] has it as having 15 per cent of NBS.
Did this rating come about from council’s work or the building owner completing an assessment? Or no engineering assessment has been provided and the earthquake rating has not been determined?
Blue baths has the same rating, but it was closed. Why is this?
What works would need to be done for council to consider it safe enough?
How much was it estimated to cost?
For response (each point please):
- Romanes is confused and frustrated why Blue Baths was closed and another building with the same rating is able to still operate.
“When you consider how many people would go through Pak N’ Save in a week compared to the blue baths is just ridiculous beyond comparison.”
When the decision was made to close the buildings she said she had been told Rotorua Lakes Council chief executive Geoff Williams said he had “no appetite for risk.”
She felt it was paranoia and thought when MBIE released its
advice in July council would rethink. (Guidance on buildings able to be used
during planning, funding and undertaking of works: “An NBS rating is not a predictor of building failure in
an earthquake and buildings with low NBS ratings are not imminently dangerous.
“Understanding the relative vulnerability of
different building elements, potential consequences of failure of these elements,
and options to mitigate that risk, is more important than the overall NBS
rating for a building.”)
Instead, she said it doubled down on its earlier decision.
- Romanes had a business plan that aimed to revitalise the Category 1 heritage building and offer business growth as well as address seismic issues.
Shortly after she applied for resource consent council did its own seismic assessment and the building closed.
- Asked if she thought council upheld its responsibility as landlord, she said it did do some maintenance but said there was a lack of “big picture” thinking, particularly in it being a heritage building and planning for the future.
“So that the building had a life beyond the end of our tenure.”
She said it was difficult to get council to “come to the party” in getting it to the condition it needed to be in for the business to operate in the intended way as a high-end venue.
Response
The following information was provided:
The information below re this first lot of questions is information you can use and can be attributed to ‘a council spokesperson’ if needed:
Are there any Rotorua buildings not on the register that are earthquake prone? Are any of the listings not up to date? (I.e. ratings) Why is Blue Baths not listed on here?
The Blue Baths is still to be added and information regarding the Pak N Save building will be updated. There may be other buildings to add to the register – the process of identifying earthquake-prone buildings is ongoing with four years left for Council to complete this work.
How many buildings are left to be assessed? (deadline for doing so being 2027 I believe) Any priority buildings left?
There are no more ‘priority’ buildings to be assessed but there are approximately 268 ‘profile’ buildings to be assessed or for further investigation or assessment.
How many of those notified (priority and not priority) have completed a detailed assessment?
It would take the team considerable time to ascertain this as they would need to go through each individual building file so we are not able to provide this information at this time. Let us know if you still want this info and we’ll check the time and resource that would be required.
Pak N’ Save has been identified as earthquake prone and has been notified as such. The listing on the register does not have an earthquake rating but I see its notice lists it as having 15 per cent of NBS.
Did this rating come about from council’s work or the building owner completing an assessment? Or no engineering assessment has been provided and the earthquake rating has not been determined?
The rating was determined by structural engineers employed by the building owner.
The responses from here can be attributed to DCE Organisational Enablement Thomas Collé:
Blue baths has the same rating, but it was closed. Why is this?
The decision to close the Blue Baths was made under the Council’s Seismic Policy and Risk Reduction Framework for Council Buildings which applies to all council-owned buildings that accommodate staff and/or public and could pose a risk to health and safety due to a seismic event. This includes council-owned buildings that are leased.
As per the policy, if a building is assessed to be under 34% of NBS in a detailed seismic assessment and is therefore deemed to be earthquake-prone, Council will either relocate or strengthen the building to meet the target strengthening level, as set out in the policy. In this instance, the decision was to close the building at this time.
Council has legal obligations for staff and public safety and we take those responsibilities very seriously.
As noted in the Detailed Seismic Assessment, the main weakness regarding the Blue Baths is the ground which is at risk of liquefaction if a seismic event were to occur. This could, in turn, cause differential settlement that could lead to a failure of the building structure and as a result, could lead to “catastrophic failure” of the building.
Decisions regarding closure of earthquake-prone buildings are a matter for the building owner.
We do not make decisions to close council buildings lightly but given all the information we have, we deem the risk to allow ongoing use of the building, in its current state, to be unacceptable.
Our responsibilities for public safety are always the main consideration and this is balanced with expert information and advice, the probability of something like an earthquake happening and the potential consequences of that. The same level of considerations would apply to potentially re-opening.
What works would need to be done for council to consider it safe enough?
As per the council policy, we would, as a bare minimum, require the building to be above 33% NBS and for an Importance Level 3 (IL3) building, which is what we consider the Blue Baths to be, would then do more work to investigate options to achieve 67% or above.
We do not know at this time what work would be required. We expect the future of the Blue Baths to be part of the next Long-term Plan cycle.
How much was it estimated to cost?
We do not know at this time. We expect the future of the Blue Baths to be part of the next Long-term Plan cycle, when Council will consider and set the work programme for the 2023-2033 period.
In response to Ms Romanes comments:
The Blue Baths leaseholders did not share with us their plans to address the seismic issues identified in Council’s Detailed Seismic Assessment and geotechnical report.
We have been in ongoing discussions with Mrs Romanes, as recently as this week, and are happy to meet again to discuss or address any further concerns or questions she may have.
Regular checks and maintenance to ensure the building maintains its building warrant of fitness are ongoing.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Media: NZME (Rotorua Daily Post and BOP Times)
Topic: 31 Ngongotaha Road
Enquiry
Regarding potential housing development at 31 Ngongotaha Road, now owned by MHUD:
Would a development of this type about 350 public, and private houses need to be put out for public consultation when the consent is lodged - and what is the process?
Plus what difference would 350 homes make to Rotorua'a housing crisis?
Response
From DCE District Development Jean-Paul Gaston:
Would a development of this type about 350 public, and private houses need to be put out for public consultation when the consent is lodged - and what is the process?
This is not something we can answer as we have not as yet received an application, and therefore details of what is proposed, but whether public notification and consultation would be required would, as it always is, be considered as part of the consenting process.
Plus what difference would 350 homes make to Rotorua's housing crisis?
Rotorua is in need of more homes of all types and 350 homes would be a significant development which would contribute to reducing Rotorua’s critical housing shortage.
We have a deficit of about 1800 homes which has directly contributed to a significant increase in rent and house prices during the past few years.
Our assessment has been that we need 6000 more homes to accommodate growth and the changing needs of our population over the next decade. For example, an ageing population means we will need more smaller homes.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Media: Stuff
Topic: 31 Ngongotaha Road
Enquiry
I've had confirmation from MHUD that they have acquired land at 31 Ngongotaha Rd for a planned 350 home development.
I wanted to ask:
Is this the same land that was once considered for a Special Housing Area development? (https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/property/102327068/rotorua-housing-development-awaits-green-light)?
If this is the same land, wasn't the original SHA proposal rejected due to flood concerns?
Response
Yes that is the same land.
Re the decision to reject the then owner’s application for the site to be given SHA status, that was a decision of Minister Woods, not council, so I think you should be referring back to her decision regarding the reasons.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Media: NZME (Rotorua Daily Post and BOP Times)
Topic: Red plastic bags used where wheelie bins can't be used
Enquiry
Is someone able to please advise whether the council issues rubbish bags are recyclable, are recycled or are biodegradable?
Response
From Craig Goodwin, our Manager, Waste and Climate Change:
The red bags that are issued to people in areas around our district where wheelie bins aren’t currently in use are not biodegradable.
Biodegradable bags break down when they come into contact with moisture so they are not durable enough for our needs and are also expensive compared to the bags we use.
Some facts about the previously used paper bags:
As very few Councils in the country were still using paper bags it was becoming increasingly expensive and difficult to purchase stock. Rotorua Lakes Council was spending approximately $1m per year on paper bags.
Without access to oxygen (ie when buried in a landfill), it takes as long for paper bags to break down as plastic bags.
Paper which breaks down within a landfill (without access to proper conditions) causes methane which rises up though the landfill and escapes as a greenhouse gas with a Global Warming Potential 25 times worse than Carbon Dioxide which is extremely bad for the environment
Biodegradable bags can also generate methane in a landfill.