AGENDA
Extraordinary meeting of the
Nelson City Council
Thursday 30 June 2016
Commencing at 10.00am
Council Chamber
Civic House
110 Trafalgar Street, Nelson
Membership: Her Worship the Mayor Rachel Reese (Chairperson), Councillors Luke Acland, Ian Barker, Ruth Copeland, Eric Davy, Kate Fulton, Matt Lawrey, Paul Matheson (Deputy Mayor), Brian McGurk, Gaile Noonan, Pete Rainey, Tim Skinner and Mike Ward
Nelson City Council
30 June 2016
Opening Prayer
1.1 Apologies have been received from Councillors Eric Davy and Luke Acland
2. Confirmation of Order of Business
3.1 Updates to the Interests Register
3.2 Identify any conflicts of interest in the agenda
4.1 Jose Gay-Cano, Brian Riley and David Wallace - Arthouse Architects
Jose Gay-Cano will be joined by Brian Riley and David Wallace of Arthouse Architects to speak about Special Housing Areas – Option 7, Barcelona Lofts, 237 Haven Road.
4.2 Natalia Harrington - Hybrid Homes and Living Ltd
Natalia Harrington, of Hybrid Homes and Living Ltd, will speak about Special Housing Areas (Dodson Valley).
4.3 Tony Ally from Davis Ogilivie and Bernard Downey - Saltwater Creek Investments Ltd
Tony Ally, from Davis Ogilivie, and Bernard Downey will speak about proposing that 81-83 Haven Road be incorporated into Special Housing Areas.
4.4 Mark Lile and Granville Dunstan - Landmark Lile Ltd
Mark Lile and Granville Dunstan, from Landmark Lile Ltd, will speak about Special Housing Areas (371 Wakefield Quay).
4.5 Aaron Smail - Summerset Group Holdings Ltd
Aaron Smail, from Summerset Group Holdings Ltd, will speak about Special Housing Areas (Saxton).
4.6 Dolly and Mike Brennan
Dolly and Mike Brennan will speak about the Special Housing Areas (42 Domett Street).
4.7 Steve Cross
Steve Cross will speak about Special Housing Areas (1 & 5 Tahunanui Drive).
4.8 Aaron Walton - Aaron Walton Architecture and Design Ltd, and Rachel Dodd - Arthouse Architects Ltd
Aaron Walton from Aaron Walton Architecture and Design Ltd, and Rachel Dodd from Arthouse Architects Ltd, will speak about Special Housing Areas (1&5 Tahunanui Drive and 19-21 Beach Road).
6. Special Housing Areas 5 - 71
Document number R6101
Recommendation
Receive the report Special Housing Areas (R6101) and its attachments (A1568203, A1570355, A1565848, A1566195, A1567418, A1570343, A1569049, A1570300, A1570087, and A1563031);
Approve the amendment to the qualifying development criteria for the number of storeys from 4 to 5 storeys for the Barcelona Lofts (237 Haven Road) Special Housing Area (A1568203);
Approve 19 & 21 Beach Road (A1570355) as a potential Special Housing Area;
Approve 371 Wakefield Quay (A1565848) as a potential Special Housing Area;
Approve 81 – 83 Haven Road (A1566195) as a potential Special Housing Area;
Approve 42 Domett Street (A1567418) as a potential Special Housing Area;
Approve 1 & 5 Tahunanui Drive (A1570343) as a potential Special Housing Area;
Approve that Her Worship the Mayor recommend all potential Special Housing Areas approved as a result of considering report R6101 to the Minister of Building and Housing for consideration as Special Housing Areas under the Housing Accord and Special Housing Areas Act 2013.
7. Trafalgar Centre - Main Building Roof Replacement 72 - 76
Document number R6110
Recommendation
Receive the report Trafalgar Centre - Main Building Roof Replacement (R6110);
Revoke, in accordance with Standing Order 3.9.18, the following part of the Council resolution CL/2016/078 made on 14 April 2016:
AND THAT funding of $250,000 be approved to install a new roof over the current roof on the main building on the understanding that $70,000 is already allocated in the budget and available;
Approve funding of $240,000 to replace the roof cladding over the main building on the understanding that $70,000 is already allocated in the budget and is available.
Note:
· This meeting is expected to continue beyond lunchtime.
· Lunch will be provided at 12.30pm.
· Youth Councillors Jenna Stallard and Fynn Sawyer will be in attendance at this meeting. (delete as appropriate)
|
|
Council 30 June 2016 |
REPORT R6101
Special Housing Areas
1. Purpose of Report
1.1 To approve five potential Special Housing Areas (SHAs), and approve an amendment to an existing gazetted SHA.
1.2 To agree that Her Worship the Mayor recommend to the Minister of Building and Housing the SHAs and amendment for consideration under the Housing Accord and Special Housing Areas Act 2013 (HASHA).
2. Summary
2.1 This report seeks approval of:
· An amendment to the qualifying development criteria of the gazetted SHA at 237 Haven Road known as Barcelona Lofts SHA;
· The proposed SHA left to lie on the table at the 2 June and 16 June Council meetings, being 19 & 21 Beach Road;
· The proposed SHA at 1 & 5 Tahunanui Drive following receipt of further information;
· Three further proposed SHAs at 42 Domett Street, 81 – 83 Haven Road and 371 Wakefield Quay which have not been reported on before.
2.2 Two other proposed SHA requests, Farleigh Street and two options for a reduced extent Saxton SHA, are assessed in this report but are not recommended as suitable. If Council wishes to recommend those SHAs, then as a minimum, the recommendation should be subject to the developer(s) entering into a legal deed with Council.
2.3 The report provides a cost, risk, benefit analysis of all proposed SHAs to be considered, along with identification of the permitted baseline (i.e. what could currently be allowed through the Nelson Resource Management Plan) for each site. This information is provided to aid Council’s consideration of the SHAs. Developers have been invited to present any concepts available for the proposed SHAs at public forum.
3. Recommendation
It is recommended that the Council:
If Council wishes to approve any Special Housing Areas outside of existing residential, suburban commercial, city centre or city fringe zonings (the urban environment), then it is recommended that any approval for a SHA outside those zones be subject to:
|
Approve …<insert address>……. potential Special Housing Area subject to the developer(s) entering into a legal Deed with Council which requires, amongst other matters, the following: · That the developer specify the SHA Outcome (including the design, layout, scale, density);
· That the developer, at its sole cost, shall design, obtain all necessary consents for, and construct any additional infrastructure, or upgrades to the Councils infrastructure, required to support the development of the SHA.
· That the establishment of the SHA shall not be relied on as part of the receiving environment or permitted baseline to justify the imposition of any objectives, policies, standards or rules relating to the zoning of the SHA land or any applications for resource consent.
· That the Deed does not bind, restrict or in any other way fetter the Council’s powers and obligations under the RMA, HASHA, or any other relevant legislation. |
4. Background
4.1 Council entered into a Housing Accord with the Minister of Building and Housing on 11 June 2015 under HASHA.
4.2 In order to meet its obligations under the Housing Accord, especially in relation to targets, Council can consider using Special Housing Areas as a tool under HASHA. Under the Accord Council can recommend the creation of Special Housing Areas to the Minister of Building and Housing.
4.3 On 17 December 2015 Council approved for recommendation to the Minister of Building and Housing the creation of 9 Special Housing Areas and an Order in Council was passed by Cabinet on 15 February 2016 declaring those 9 areas as SHAs.
4.4 On 17 December 2015 Council also approved Saxton SHA subject to a master plan exercise in order to retain control over the practical and efficient roll out of infrastructure for the area given its rural zoning, thereby resolving:
AND THAT Council approve option 4 (Saxton) subject to an agreement between Council and the landowners requiring a master planning exercise for the purpose of ensuring infrastructure and open space network connectivity to be completed by the landowners prior to resource consent applications being lodged;
4.5 The Saxton SHA landowners and developers have been working together to achieve the required master plan agreement but have been unable to reach agreement. As a result requests for a reduced extent Saxton SHA have been received and these are discussed later in this report.
4.6 On 3 March 2016 Council approved for recommendation to the Minister of Building and Housing the creation of an additional SHA at 45 & 47 Beach Road. This was be approved by Order in Council on 16 May 2016.
4.7 On 2 June 2016 Council considered part of the recommendations contained in report R5858. At that meeting, a motion was put and lost for the proposed SHA at 1 & 5 Tahunanui Drive. The remaining recommendations were left to lie on the table with the SHA at 19 & 21 Beach Road having being moved and seconded.
4.8 On 16 June 2016 Council considered part of the recommendations left to lie on the table at the 2 June 2016 Council meeting, and approved the amendment to the gazetted Ocean Lodge Special Housing Area (SHA) qualifying development criteria. The remaining SHA requests from the 16 June report 5858 were left to lie on the table for consideration at the 30 June Council meeting.
4.9 In the intervening time officers have been working with applicants to gather the information requested by Council to assist the decision making process. The information that has been prepared includes: a cost benefit analysis; permitted baseline analysis; and investigation of the use of a legal deed. SHA applicants were also invited to attend the public forum for the 30 June Council meeting to speak in support of their proposals and enable Council to ask questions. The time has allowed applicants to prepare concepts and presentations for public forum.
4.10 Council has yet to receive any resource consent applications under HASHA, however advice from the majority of developers of gazetted SHA’s is that they are on track to submit an application before the September 2016 deadline.
4.11 Due to the partial repeal of HASHA on 16 September 2016, and Council and Cabinet meeting schedules up to that time, this will be the last time that Council receives a request for SHA(s) under the HASHA Act 2013.
5. Discussion
5.1 Officers have received requests for further SHAs, and an amendment to the qualifying development criteria for an existing SHA (Barcelona Lofts). Details of the SHA’s proposed qualifying development criteria and infrastructure requirements are provided in Attachments 1 to 9.
5.2 An assessment of the costs, risk, benefits and the permitted baseline for each SHA are provided in Attachment 10. A summary of each proposal is provided below.
Barcelona Lofts Amendment
5.3 Officers have received a request from the developer of Barcelona Lofts for an amendment of the qualifying development criteria for the existing SHA. The amendment proposed is for an additional storey with the overall height remaining the same. The existing and proposed qualifying development criteria for Barcelona Lofts are summarised in the table below:
|
Existing Qualifying Development Criteria |
|
|
Maximum number of storeys |
4 |
|
Maximum calculated height |
20 |
|
Minimum dwelling capacity |
9 |
|
Proposed Qualifying Development Criteria |
|
|
Maximum number of storeys |
5 |
|
Maximum calculated height |
20 |
|
Minimum dwelling capacity |
9 |
5.3 The amended qualifying development criteria are proposed in Attachment 1. The reason for the amendment is to allow a partial 5th storey which will be the bedrooms of the units contained on the 4th level. The 5th storey will be stepped back from the other storeys and away from the road frontage.
19 & 21 Beach Road – Beach Apartments
5.4 Officers have received a request from the landowner of 19 & 21 Beach Road that the property be considered as a SHA. This site is close to the existing gazetted Ocean Lodge and 45 & 47 Beach Road SHA’s (all being located on Beach Road). The landowner seeks similar qualifying development criteria for the site as that approved for the Ocean Lodge. Further details of the proposed SHA are provided in Attachment 2 and a cost, risk, benefit and permitted baseline analysis is provided for the proposal in Attachment 10.
371 Wakefield Quay
5.5 Officers have received a request from the landowner of 371 Wakefield Quay that the property be considered as a SHA. Further details of the proposed SHA are provided in Attachment 3 and a cost, risk, benefit and permitted baseline analysis is provided for the proposal in Attachment 10.
81 – 83 Haven Road
5.6 Officers have received a request from the landowner of 81 -83 Haven Road that the property be considered as a SHA. Further details of the proposed SHA are provided in Attachment 4 and a cost, risk, benefit and permitted baseline analysis is provided for the proposal in Attachment 10.
42 Domett Street
5.7 Officers have received a request from the landowner of 42 Domett Street that the property be considered as a SHA. Further details of the proposed SHA are provided in Attachment 5 and a cost, risk, benefit and permitted baseline analysis is provided for the proposal in Attachment 10.
1 & 5 Tahunanui Drive – Tahuna Lifestyle Apartments
5.8 At the 2 June Council meeting a motion was put and lost for an amendment in the qualifying development criteria for 1 & 5 Tahunanui Drive from that proposed in report R5858. Since that meeting the qualifying development criteria and the availability of supporting information to address the issues raised by Council has changed.
5.9 Officers have received a request from the landowner of 1 & 5 Tahunanui Drive that the property be considered as a SHA and that they will provide further information via public forum on the anticipated design outcome for the site. Officers have also investigated the infrastructure issues raised by Council at the 2 June Council meeting and provide further information in relation to those in Attachment 6 and in the cost, risk benefit and permitted baseline analysis in Attachment 10.
5.10 Qualifying development criteria consistent with the Beach Road SHAs is sought for this site. The consideration of this SHA is not inconsistent with any other previous Council decision; the proposed SHA has been amended and further information provided.
35 Farleigh Street
5.11 Officers have received a request from Hybrid Homes who wish to have 35 Farleigh Street considered as a SHA. The yield qualifying development criteria proposed has changed from that of 14 lots included in the 2 June Council report R5858 and the greater yield density proposal of 24 lots that was presented at public forum by the applicants’ surveyor on 2 June 2016, to the now proposed 19 lots. The revised criteria are as a result of further discussions between officers and the applicant in terms of infrastructure requirements. Revised qualifying development criteria and a map of this rural site in Dodson’s Valley are provided in Attachment 7. A cost, risk, benefit and permitted baseline analysis is provided for the proposal in Attachment 10.
Saxton SHA – Reduced Extent – Options 1 and 2
5.12 Officers have received a request from Summerset Retirement Village (developer of Raine’s farm part of the SHA) and the Scott’s (adjoining landowner within original Saxton SHA proposal) that the extent of the SHA be reduced to include just the two properties and the map and qualifying development criteria revised accordingly as shown in Attachment 8 – Saxton Option 1.
5.13 Officers have also received a request from Summerset Retirement Village that the Saxton SHA extent be reduced to include just one property, that part of the Raine Farm to be developed by Summerset Retirement Village. The map and qualifying development criteria for this option have been revised accordingly and are show in Attachment 9 – Saxton Option 2.
5.14 A cost, risk, benefit and permitted baseline analysis is provided for both options in Attachment 10.
6. Options
6.1 The criteria used to evaluate SHA suitability and each sites assessment are detailed in Attachments 1 to 9, along with a map identifying each area. The assessment criteria include the HASHA requirements that need to be satisfied (adequate infrastructure and demand for residential housing), consistency with the Accord, and alignment with the Nelson Resource Management Plan.
6.2 A cost, risk and benefit analysis including an analysis of the permitted baseline for each SHA proposal is also provided to assist Councils decision. This analysis is provided in Attachment 10.
A summary of the officer’s recommendation in
relation to each SHA request is provided in the table below and a summary of
the overall costs, risks and benefits of the SHAs is contained in the remaining
part of section 6 of this report:
|
Name |
Recommendation |
|
Barcelona Lofts Amendment |
suitable |
|
19 & 21 Beach Road - Beach Apartments |
suitable |
|
1 & 5 Tahunanui drive - Tahuna Lifestyle Apartments |
suitable |
|
371 Wakefield Quay |
suitable |
|
81 – 83 Haven Road |
suitable |
|
42 Domett Street |
suitable |
|
Farleigh Street |
not suitable |
|
Saxton – Option 1 (Summerset and Scott) |
not suitable |
|
Saxton – Option 2 (Summerset) |
not suitable |
6.3 Some sites already have sufficient infrastructure connections. Other sites require additional connection and/or capacity to be provided. Where this isn’t already a project in the Long Term Plan the necessary infrastructure will need to be provided by the developer. Developers are also able to seek that projects be included in the LTP and Council can choose to consult with the community on their inclusion. The recommended SHA’s will not result in any additional infrastructure costs on Council from that included in the current or future Long Term Plan(s). Council can impose a condition of resource consent requiring a financial contribution to mitigate the effects of any SHA on the infrastructure network.
6.4 Council has the option of approving these SHA’s and the SHA amendment for recommendation to the Minister, or declining to recommend them to the Minister. Council has committed through the Housing Accord to enhance housing supply.
6.5 The current likely yield from the ten gazetted SHA’s is 417 residential units and if Council approves the SHA’s in this report the likely total yield Council has enabled through the Housing Accord will be 510 residential units.
6.6 The SHA’s will assist Council to meet the Accord targets, and to enhance the supply of townhouses and apartments in the Nelson market, thereby enabling a range of housing choice.
6.7 If Council decides not to recommend the additional SHA’s and SHA amendment, the development opportunity of some of those sites will likely be lost as developers indicate the HASHA process enables them to overcome current economic viability and process barriers on these sites.
6.8 The proposed SHAs at Farleigh Street and the reduced extent(s) of Saxton are not supported by officers. The reasons for that are outlined in the attached cost, benefit, risk and permitted baseline analysis in Attachment 10 and are summarised generally in the bullets in 6.12 below.
6.9 The original Saxton SHA was supported by officers subject to the landowners entering into the master plan agreement to ensure infrastructure and open space connectivity. The requirement for this agreement mitigated any concerns in relation to efficient and effective servicing of the area, between adjoining properties, and reduced the risks that Council would be responsible for retrofitting after development occurs (as has been the case in the area of Plan Change 18).
6.10 The size of the original Saxton SHA containing 5 properties, and being the logical extension of the residential zone to the north, mitigated concerns of the need for comprehensive planning in the area primarily because all 5 landowners were included in the SHA, there were no spatial gaps in the urban area to be defined. The proposed reduced extent SHA does not offer any mitigation of these issues and risks. It effectively provides for an island of intense development surrounded by Rural Zoned properties with private infrastructure provision not providing for comprehensive development of the area.
6.11 The lower yield of the reduced extent SHA means any future commitment of Council to the construction of supporting infrastructure (i.e. such as the link road from Hill Street North to Suffolk Road considered during the Annual Plan) needed to support urban development in this rural area, is less economic and places a greater financial burden on ratepayers.
6.12 Officers have investigated the potential use of a legal deed through which to control SHA outcomes where the risks of approving a SHA to Council and the community are potentially significant. This applies to both the Farleigh and Saxton reduced extent SHA proposals which are located in the Rural Zone where:
· supporting infrastructure was not planned to accommodate development in this location and therefore there is no financial provision for any required upgrades or extensions of the network in the LTP or the Development Contributions Policy;
· infrastructure needs to be integrated across and with adjoining urban areas to ensure efficient future development and avoid the need for retrofitting by Council;
· any development should be considered in a comprehensive manner, considering the effects and likelihood of development on any other adjoining rural zoned land with which there is a need to integrate the provision of infrastructure and urban form;
· the adjoining property owners would not, and could not have, anticipated development of an urban nature and scale occurring on the Farleigh site and Council has limited control over the SHA outcome to mitigate these concerns. This issue is less significant for the surrounding neighbours of the Saxton SHA having being included in the consultation for Plan change 18 and the original SHA request;
· the establishment of a SHA could be used to argue that it becomes part of the ‘existing environment’ or ‘permitted baseline’ for any future resource consent or plan change applications or submissions under the RMA, thereby potentially undermining the Nelson Plan review.
6.13 A legal deed could address the above issues, but is considered to be an aspirational (designed to set the tone) agreement between the developer and Council. It provides some assurance in terms of the risks of approving a SHA in the Rural Zone, in that it provides a degree of certainty in relation to the outcome, where costs lie and the intention that the SHA should not be relied upon in RMA processes. The Deed concept does have limitations in that while it sets out the intentions of both parties, should a developer default, then Council would need to take legal proceedings to ensure the Deed is enforced. Such proceedings come with their own costs and risks.
6.14 Entering into a legal deed for SHAs in the Rural Zone does not however overcome the fact that there has been no public consultation over the use of SHAs in the Rural Zone. The community can expect that development will occur on sites with urban zoning. However existing residents adjoining the Rural Zone in Farleigh Street would not be anticipating development of a residential nature to occur on those sites, and Council has not sought the views of those potentially affected by such a proposal.
6.15 In the case of the Saxton SHA, residential development of the Rural Zone area the SHA is located in was subject to public consultation as part of the work informing Plan Change 18 prior to 2010. While Council has sought the views of those potentially affected by urban development in the area in the past, and the views of those in the first Saxton SHA proposal are known, the current views of those potentially affected in the wider Saxton urban area are not known.
6.16 In recommending SHAs in existing areas zoned to permit residential development of an urban density (i.e. in the Residential Zone, Inner City Zone, City Fringe Zone and Suburban Commercial Zone) adjoining landowners would be anticipating such development. In assessing those SHA applications officers are able to rely upon the permitted activity development rights afforded to those Zones by the NRMP, and that any breach of those will be considered on its merits through the resource consent process provided for by HASHA. That HASHA assessment process requires consideration of the intent of those Zones (their objectives, policies and rules) contained in the NRMP as well as urban design principles set out by the MFE Urban Design Protocol. This assessment is albeit of less weighting than that of enhancing housing supply, thus the Governments intent behind HASHA. HASHA also states that Council’s regulatory unit may notify adjacent property owners as part of that assessment process.
7. Conclusion
7.1 This report seeks approval of:
· An amendment to the qualifying development criteria of the gazetted SHA at 237 Haven Road known as Barcelona Lofts SHA;
· The proposed SHA left to lie on the table at the 2 June and 16 June Council meetings, being 19 & 21 Beach Road;
· The proposed SHA at 1 & 5 Tahunanui Drive following receipt of further information;
· Three further proposed SHAs at 42 Domett Street, 81 – 83 Haven Road and 371 Wakefield Quay which have not been reported on before.
7.2 Two other proposed SHA requests, Farleigh Street and two reduced extent Saxton SHA options, are assessed in this report but are not recommended as suitable. If Council wants to recommend those SHAs, then as a minimum, the recommendation should be subject to the developer(s) entering into a legal deed with Council.
Lisa Gibellini
Development Projects Planner
Attachments
Attachment 1: A1568203 SHA Barcelona Lofts (amendment)
Attachment 2: A1570355 SHA 19 & 21 Beach Road
Attachment 3: A1565848 SHA 371 Wakefield Quay
Attachment 4: A1566195 SHA 81-83 Haven Road
Attachment 5: A1567418 SHA 42 Domett Street
Attachment 6: A1570343 SHA 1 & 5 Tahunanui Drive
Attachment 7: A1569049 SHA 35 Farleigh Street
Attachment 8: A1570300 SHA Saxton Option 1
Attachment 9: A1570087 SHA Saxton Option 2
Attachment 10: A1563031 SHA Cost, Risk, Benefit and Permitted Baseline Analysis
|
Important considerations for decision making |
|
1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government The recommendations in this report are consistent with the purpose of local government and directly seek to achieve meeting “the current and future needs of communities for good-quality local infrastructure, local public services, and performance of regulatory functions in a way that is most cost-effective for households and businesses” |
|
2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy The recommendations align with the direction set by Council for SHA’s at the 17 December 2015, 3 March 2016, 2 June and 16 June Council meetings and the Nelson Housing Accord. The recommendations are also consistent with achieving greater housing choice goals sought through Council’s Strategic documents, especially the strategic outcomes driving the Nelson Plan review. |
|
3. Risk HASHA, SHAs and Nelson Housing Accord provides an opportunity for Council to facilitate residential development in urban areas that are otherwise not occurring due to economic viability and process issues. If SHAs recommended in this report are not approved then there is a risk that development of those sites is not enabled, and the goal of furthering the supply of residential units as part of the Housing Accord is not met. If SHAs not recommended suitable in this report are approved, then there is a risk that development occurs in an individual site basis requiring Council will need to fund and retrofit infrastructure and opens space networks in the future, as well as a risks of legal challenge by residents in the area not anticipating residential development in the Rural Zone. |
|
4. Financial impact All infrastructure required to serve the SHAs is to be provided by the developer, unless it is a project that is scheduled in the Long Term Plan and funded via Development Contributions. All costs of the processing of SHA resource consent applications will be funded by the applicant. |
|
5. Degree of significance and level of engagement This matter is of low to medium significance because it does not significantly impact the community. The SHAs recommended in this report are all located in existing zoned residential, suburban commercial, or city fringe areas where development of the site is anticipated by the community. The establishment of SHAs recommended in this report will result in subsequent resource consent applications under HASHA for such development, and at that time engagement with adjacent landowners will occur if Council’s regulatory arm considers that they are affected. Overall, the establishment of SHAs recommended in this report will assist with increasing housing supply in Nelson which will be of benefit to the wider community. |
|
6. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process Maori have not been consulted on this matter. |
|
7. Delegations No committee of Council has delegations for the Housing Accord and Special Housing Areas Act 2013 and therefore the matter needs to be considered by full Council. |
|
|
Council 30 June 2016 |
REPORT R6110
Trafalgar Centre - Main Building Roof Replacement
1. Purpose of Report
1.1 To provide further detail and recommendation on replacing the roof cladding over the Trafalgar Centre main building.
2. Summary
2.1 A report that included this item was considered by Council at its meeting on 14 April 2016. It relates to renewing the roof over the main building of the Trafalgar Centre.
2.2 At that meeting Council resolved to place new roof cladding over the existing roof caladding. A further assessment on future maintenance implications of the recommended option plus recent developments on roof loadings has resulted in a change of thinking. This report outlines those assessments and recommends removing the old cladding and replacing it with new cladding.
3. Recommendation
It is recommended that the Council
4. Background
4.1 As stated in the report 14 April 2016, severe corrosion was identified under the overlaps of the roof cladding when sections of roofing were removed to install the new internal roof bracing. This corrosion is sufficiently severe that even with treatment and repainting, the roof cladding may only last another 10-20 years.
4.2 The three options presented to Council were;
· Roof Option 1 – Lift the roofing and treat the corrosion under the overlaps and repaint the roof. This had an estimated cost of $210,000. This would only extend the life of the roof 10-20 years.
· Roof Option 2 - Remove the old cladding and replace with new cladding. This had an estimated cost of $310,000.
· Roof Option 3 - Treat the corrosion under the laps on the old roof, then put new battens across the old roof and install a new roof over the top. This had an estimated cost of $320,000.
4.3 Council considered the three options and passed the following resolution based on the advice and recommendations (CL/2016/078);
AND THAT funding of $250,000 be approved to install a new roof over the current roof on the main building on the understanding that $70,000 is already allocated in the budget and available.
5. Discussion
5.1 In the April 2016 report it was stated that there were potential health and safety benefits in putting a new roof cladding over the old cladding. The report also stated potential improvements in insulation and sound proofing from external weather events. Although these offered advantages, other factors have been given further assessment and do outweigh these advantages.
5.2 The first factor is the long term viability of the new roof cladding built over the old cladding. Attention has been drawn to increased risk of condensation between the two layers of roof cladding. Whilst this may not be noticeable in the first few years it is likely that condensation could accelerate corrosion in the already corroded older roof cladding. If and when any repairs are required will require removing the new roof cladding over the top. The chances of the new roof lasting at least another 50 years could be compromised.
5.3 The second factor is the additional loading on the roof structure. Since the April 2016 report further investigations into the roof loadings have indicated that the additional loading of a second layer of roof cladding could compromise the opportunities to hang sound and lighting equipment from the roof internally. It could also limit the flexibility around implementing the proposed ‘theatre’ option within the Trafalgar Centre.
5.4 With this additional information it is considered that removing and replacing the roof cladding may be more cost-effective in the long-term. Both options have similar estimates so there are no cost implications.
5.5 The proposed option involves exposing the roof lining and interior to the weather, therefore it is necessarily that it be undertaken during appropriate weather conditions. At this stage it is not likely to be undertaken before September this year.
5.6 There are also additional health and safety risks with removing the old roof compared to the other two options, however the contractor has confirmed that a methodology can be implemented that manages those risks.
5.7 It is therefore recommended that Council revoke the April 2016 resolution to install a new roof cladding over the top the current roof cladding and adopt the option of removing the old roof cladding and replacing it with new roof cladding.
6. Options
6.1 The following table outlines the advantages and disadvantages of each of the options listed.
|
Option 1: Treat Corrosion and Paint Current Roof |
|
|
Advantages |
· It is a cheaper option in the short term. |
|
Risks and Disadvantages |
· The roof cladding would potentially need to be renewed in the next 10-20 years. · In the longer term not considered a cost-effective option. |
|
Option 2: Remove and Replace Roof Cladding |
|
|
Advantages |
· New roof cladding would have a life of at least 50 years |
|
Risks and Disadvantages |
· A higher cost up front than Option 1 but considered more cost-effective in the long term. · Health and Safety risks with removing and replacing the roof cladding · The work is weather dependant |
|
Option 3: Install new roof cladding over the top of the old roof cladding |
|
|
Advantages |
· New roof cladding would extend the life of the roof compared to Option 1 · Potential improvements in insulation and sound proofing from external weather events · Health and safety risks during construction are lower than in Option 2 |
|
Risks and Disadvantages |
· Dual skin cladding is likely to increase condensation leading to increased corrosion increasing the chance of maintenance · Future maintenance compromised with a dual cladding roof · The increased loadings will compromise the opportunities to hang sound and lighting equipment internally from the ceiling |
7. Conclusion
7.1 The conclusion is that instead of installing battens and new cladding over the current roof of the main building of the Trafalgar Centre, that the current roof cladding be removed and replaced with new roof cladding at an estimated cost of $310,000.
Richard Kirby
Consulting Engineer
Attachments
|
Important considerations for decision making |
|
1. Fit with Purpose of Local Government This project fits in with the purpose of local government as it contributes to meeting the current and future needs of communities for good-quality local infrastructure and local public services. |
|
2. Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy This report is in line with Council’s position of re-opening the Trafalgar Centre as it is outlined in its Long-Term Plan 2015/25. |
|
3. Risk The risks are outlined in the report and the risks associated with the recommended option have been highlighted and will be managed during construction. |
|
4. Financial impact The recommended option can be undertaken within the funding that has been allocated. |
|
5. Degree of significance and level of engagement Council signalled its intention to re-open the Centre as part of its 2014/15 Annual Plan. Council has also included the project in its Long-Term Plan 2015-25. No consultation on the matters raised in this report has been undertaken. It is of low significance because it is primarily about replacing the roof of the Trafalgar Centre, therefore it is not considered necessary to undertake any consultation. |
|
6. Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process Consultation with Maori occurred through the Annual and Long Term Plan processes. |
|
7. Delegations Council resolved in June 2014 for updates to be reported to full Council. |
