PROPOSED PLAN CHANGE 56 - FIREFIGHTING WATER SUPPLIES CODE OF PRACTICE

PROPOSED PLAN CHANGE 56 - FIREFIGHTING WATER SUPPLIES CODE OF PRACTICE Combined Regional Land and District Plan Section 32 Report

GISBORNE DISTRICT COUNCIL District Plan Review Section 32 Report February 2013 CONTENTS Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 2.0 BACKGROUND 2 2.1 WHAT IS THE CODE? 2 2.2 INITIAL ISSUES IDENTIFIED WITH APPLICATION OF THE CODE THROUGH THE DISTRICT PLAN 3 2.2.1 Is the District Plan an appropriate place to enforce the Code? 3 2.2.2 Ability to Enforce the Code in Rural Areas 3 2.2.3 Awareness of the Code 4 2.2.4 Monitoring and Compliance Issues 4 2.2.5 Affordability of meeting the Code 4 2.2.6 Effectiveness of tanks in rural areas 5 2.3 RISKS OF STRUCTURAL FIRES IN THE GISBORNE DISTRICT 5 2.4 HOW ARE STRUCTURAL FIRES ADDRESSED? 5 2.4.1 Detection Systems 6 2.4.2 Fire Fighting Systems 6 2.4.3 Building Design 6 2.4.4 Education 6 2.5 FIRE MITIGATION AND THE BUILDING ACT 6 2.6 CONSULTATION AND RESEARCH 8 2.7 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 8 2.8 INCORPORATION OF THE CODE INTO THE DISTRICT PLAN 9 3.0 IDENTIFICATION OF OPTIONS 11 3.1 EXISTING STATUTORY AND POLICY FRAMEWORK FOR THE REVIEW 11 3.2 POSSIBLE APPROACHES 12 3.3 OPTIONS 14 4.0 PREFERRED OPTIONS 21 Appendices Appendix 1: Section 32 of the Resource Management Act 1991 Appendix 2: Table of Comparative Risks to Personal Safety Page ii

1.0 INTRODUCTION Gisborne District Council are currently investigating the extent to which the New Zealand Fire Service Fire Fighting Water Supplies Code of Practice SNZ PAS 4509:2008 (the Code) should be enforced through the Combined Regional Land and District Plan (The Plan). The Code sets out what constitutes a sufficient minimum supply of water pressure and volume for fire fighting. It relates to water pressure in reticulated systems, installation of sprinklers in buildings and the storage of water for fire fighting. The Council initiated this project as it had concerns about the affordability and effectiveness of the measures needed to meet the Code, as well as concerns about awareness, monitoring and ongoing compliance with the Code. The Council also wished to consider whether application of the Code was an appropriate matter to address in a District Plan. An initial discussion paper was presented to the Environment and Policy Committee in December by Council staff. This has since been used as a basis for further consultation and research. From the consultation and research, several options have been identified. This report provides an analysis of the options and conclusions on a proposal to change the District Plan (Plan Change 56). This report is intended to satisfy the requirements of Section 32 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (the Act) which requires Council to carry out an evaluation of alternatives, costs and benefits of the proposed change/review. Submissions on Proposed Plan Change 56 can be made until (date to be confirmed). Submissions can be made by sending a written submission to Gisborne District Council, PO Box 747, Gisborne 4040; or by delivering the submission to the Council offices in Gisborne or Te Puia Springs. Submission must be made using the prescribed form. 1

2.0 BACKGROUND 2.1 WHAT IS THE CODE? The Code provides guidelines on what constitutes a sufficient minimum supply of water pressure and volume for fire fighting involving buildings. The Code also provides direction on other matters such as Fire Service vehicle access to water sources. Although the Code has been developed for urban fire districts, it is also intended to provide guidance on minimum fire fighting water for buildings in rural areas. The intent of the Code is to encourage measures in new development to mitigate the risks of fire. Essentially two types of measures are promoted; the proactive measure, which is to control the fire at source using sprinkler protection, or the reactive measure which is to rely on an external fire agency such as the New Zealand Fire Service (NZFS), applying water. For the latter measure, suitable fire fighting water supply needs to be available. It was intended that the Code would form the basis of a partnership between the NZFS, territorial authorities, water supply authorities and developers so that the Code may be used as a basis for territorial authority and water supply authority conditions of supply or be used, for example, by territorial authorities in rules regulating subdivisions in the District Plan. The standard method for establishing the required fire fighting water supply is by use of Tables 1 and 2 in the Code. These tables assign a fire water classification (FW1 to FW7) according to the type of activity, size of fire cells and whether sprinklers are present. Each fire water classification has requirements according to whether the area is reticulated or non-reticulated. For reticulated areas, the Code specifies the minimum water pressure of the water main and the maximum number of fire hydrants to provide this water pressure. For non-reticulated areas, the Code specifies a minimum volume of water to be dedicated to fire fighting and stored within 90m of the structure. As an example, housing (excluding multi-storey apartment blocks) is FW1 if sprinklered and FW2 if without sprinklers. For these FW classifications in reticulated areas, a water pressure of 450L/min is required for sprinklered housing and 750L/min for non-sprinklered housing. In non-reticulated areas, sprinklered housing requires storage of 7,000L of water and non-sprinklered housing requires storage of 45,000L of water. Another example is the scenario of a building classified as a FW6 (generally an industrial or commercial activity) that is located in an area that only supplies a reticulated water supply capable of supplying up to classification FW5. If upgrading of the water main is impractical, the options are to install an approved sprinkler system, divide the building into smaller fire cells or install the shortfall of fire fighting water onsite. The Code envisages that fire engineers or similar competent persons may develop alternative solutions to those provided in the Code. The Code also provides a method for calculating a fire fighting water supply as an alternative to the standard approach in the tables. However, to comply with the Code, such alternatives must be submitted for approval to the prescribed persons in the Fire Service. 2

The Code is reviewed every five years. Since the latest edition of the Code was published in 2008, the next review should take place in 2013. At this stage a date has not been set for release, but the NZFS has advised Council staff that it is likely to be reviewed towards the end of 2013. There will be opportunities for participation on the review committee as a representative of a stakeholder organisation (although Standards New Zealand makes the final selection) and there is an opportunity for public to comment when the draft is released. At this stage the NZFS are unable to give an indication as to likely changes to the Code, except that the revised Code is intended to promote the benefits of advancing technology to improve risk mitigation from fire. 2.2 INITIAL ISSUES IDENTIFIED WITH APPLICATION OF THE CODE THROUGH THE DISTRICT PLAN Council s initial concerns with application of the Code through the District Plan which prompted this project were: Is the District Plan an appropriate place to enforce the Code? Ability to enforce the Code in rural areas. Awareness of the Code. Monitoring and compliance issues. Affordability of meeting the Code. Effectiveness of tanks in rural areas. 2.2.1 Is the District Plan an appropriate place to enforce the Code? It was questioned as to whether the risk of structural fire could be considered an environmental issue and therefore within the core concerns of the RMA. The NZ Fire Service believe they have a responsibility under the Fire Service Act 1975 to provide for fire fighting activities in a safe, effective and efficient manner and that this role fits within the sustainable management purpose of the RMA, in particular the health and safety of people and communities. It could be argued that, at least as far as the Code sets standards for infrastructure design, it addresses an issue commonly dealt with in District Plans through reference to other standards. On the other hand, it could be argued that as far as the Code relates to fire protection systems for buildings, it should not be used to impose additional requirements above those in the Building Act and Building Code. 2.2.2 Ability to Enforce the Code in Rural Areas The legitimacy of a rule in the District Plan requiring compliance with the Code in rural areas was also raised, as the Code itself states it is only intended to provide guidance in rural areas. Legal advice on the issue suggests that the rule can do no more than the Code, that is, Council can use the Code as a guide as to whether a sufficient water supply is available, but cannot apply the standards in it as an absolute requirement. This results in a rule that is uncertain and subjective. 3

2.2.3 Awareness of the Code Awareness of the Code appears to be an important issue for recent developers as several expressed concern that the Code has resulted in significant unanticipated costs for their development. 2.2.4 Monitoring and Compliance Issues Any rule or conditions imposed on development requiring compliance with the Code would need to be supported by monitoring to ensure implementation. This has costs for the Council and, therefore, for the community. 2.2.5 Affordability of meeting the Code Affordability of meeting the Code for new houses in non-reticulated areas has been a key concern for recent developers. As explained above, the Code requires either in-home sprinklers or storage of water dedicated for fire fighting water supply (e.g. water tanks). The NZFS has estimated the cost of the installation of an in-home sprinkler system into a new house would be around 1-2% of the total building costs. While this is probably the case for small developments in larger centres, a local contractor has estimated the costs for installing in-home sprinklers (in conjunction with normal plumbing) in a new home in the vicinity of Te Puia Springs at around $7,800 (including GST) for a two bedroom home (this includes a variable speed pump which does all the plumbing therefore saving between $700 and $800 on buying an additional pump for the plumbing). These prices have been generated using local sources and competitors from other regions could be cheaper, however travel and accommodation costs would also need to be considered. These costs are considerably more than what the national estimate NZFS provided. The total estimated cost of the water tank option (also in Te Puia) is $12,100. This includes $7,500 for two 22,250 litre water tanks, $1,700 for installation costs including fittings and $2,900 for constructing a hardstand area of 11 x 4.5m to water tanks and 30m of driveway to support a 20 ton fire appliance. It is possible that costs may be less for less isolated developments, e.g., Wainui. More cost effective options are available for some housing developments. For example, developments which have swimming pools, ponds or rivers nearby can apply to have these alternatives approved by Council and the NZ Fire Service provided they are within 90m of the dwelling and are going to supply sufficient volumes of water in peak summer conditions and the hardened area to support the fire appliance is established. Sufficient costs and time can also be spent negotiating a non-standard solution or getting sign off that a design meets the Code. Expert reports may be required and there may be difference of opinion between experts representing the applicant and the NZFS. Affordable housing is also a key concern for Council in the Gisborne district. There are a number of unreticulated townships scattered throughout the district, and under the present District Plan provisions, new houses in these townships are required to either have sprinklers installed in new homes or an on-site water supply available. 4

2.2.6 Effectiveness of tanks in rural areas The provision of dedicated water tanks for use by fire appliances has been questioned. Water tanks also raise practical issues in terms of access, space and amenity, especially on smaller unreticulated sites, such as at Wainui. While dedicated water tanks are only one option to meet the Code, Council s experience is that water tanks are the preferred option for new residential development outside of the reticulated areas. The NZ Fire Service agree that in remote areas, tanks have little value and have clarified that they would prefer that all non-reticulated homes are fitted with sprinklers. 2.3 RISKS OF STRUCTURAL FIRES IN THE GISBORNE DISTRICT According to data from the New Zealand Fire Service, an average of 66 structural fires occurred each year in Gisborne District in the six years from 2006/2007 to 2011/2012. The majority of these (74%) were structural fires in residential property. Structural fires in commercial, retail, manufacturing and storage property accounted for 14% of the fires. The average annual estimated fire damage from these structural fires is $1.507 million. Of this estimated average annual loss, loss to residential property accounted for an average annual loss of $954,000 (64%); and loss to commercial, retail, manufacturing and storage property accounted for $362,000 (24%). We have not found data to compare losses in structures with fire fighting water supply meeting the code (e.g. sprinklers) to those that do not. One fatality occurred in the Gisborne District as a result of a structural fire in the same period from 2006/2007 to 2011/2012. This equates to 0.167 deaths per year. Applying this to Gisborne's average population over the period, the average annual risk to an individual of dying from a structural fire is 0.00036% or 0.0179% over a 50- year period. Caution should be applied to using such a small period and low occurrence to calculate risk. Nonetheless, the calculated risk is in the same order of magnitude as that calculated for New Zealand. On average, approximately 27 people die as a result of structural fires in New Zealand, which is equivalent to an average annual individual risk of 0.0373% over a 50-year period. Comparisons of historic data from other natural hazards suggests that fatality from structural fires in New Zealand is about 14 times greater than the risk of fatality from volcanic eruptions, (0.0025% equivalent annual individual fatality risk over a 50 year period), 3 times greater than fatality from earthquakes (0.0085%) and about 5 times greater than fatality from landslides or flooding (0.006%). To put this into perspective, one is about 12 times more likely to die from a motor vehicle accident each year than from a structural fire and about 170 times more likely to die from cancer (0.47% and 6.15% equivalent annual individual fatality risk over a 50 year period respectively). Further information about the calculation of these risks and data sources is provided in Appendix 2. 2.4 HOW ARE STRUCTURAL FIRES ADDRESSED? Putting to one side the legislative standards and Codes of Practice that provide guidance or require fire protection systems, there are a number of general 5

approaches to address structural fires which provide a useful context for the consideration of this Plan Change. 2.4.1 Detection Systems Smoke alarms provide early warning they can alert occupants to fires within dwellings prior to flaming stage. Early warning enables occupants to evacuate and if possible extinguish the fire at an early stage (portable extinguishers can be used when early warning is given). Some alarms are monitored by the NZ Fire Service, which may provide an earlier response time for fire fighting. 2.4.2 Fire Fighting Systems Sprinklers Sprinklers can keep fires to a minimum size (if not extinguish them) and can contain them to the room of fire origin. Sprinklers also reduce the amount of smoke produced, enabling occupants more time to evacuate and also extinguish the fire if the sprinkler has not fully done so. Sprinklers therefore provide human protection while also (in most cases) providing property protection. Reticulated Water Supply Reticulation provides a key water source for fire fighting. Generally within reticulated areas sufficient water is available and accessible for fire fighting purposes. Water Storage Stored water, e.g. water tanks, are used by fire fighters as a source of water for extinguishing the fire, especially where reticulated water is unavailable. However, as fires quickly worsen, time is of the essence. The time it takes for fire-fighters to arrive at the fire depends on how long it takes for them to be alerted, as well as the distance from the station. To be able to use the water for fire fighting, it must be accessible. 2.4.3 Building Design Appropriate building design reduces the risk to life and property during a structural fire, e.g. minimising the length of escape routes, advising on fire cell sizes and fire resistant construction materials. 2.4.4 Education Education can also help to reduce the risks from structural fires. The NZFS currently do home fire safety checks to educate people on safe fire practices and home escape plans and run high profile media campaigns. 2.5 FIRE MITIGATION AND THE BUILDING ACT The Building Act 2004 (The Building Act) and the associated Building Code address fire under for three overarching objectives, which are set out in clause C1 of the Building Code: 1 To safeguard people from an unacceptable risk of injury or illness caused by fire. 1 Clause C1, Schedule 1 to Building Regulations 1992 (The Building Code) 6

To protect other property (i.e. property not in the same allotment or ownership) from damage caused by fire. To facilitate fire fighting and rescue operations. Notably, the Building Act and Building Code do not focus on reducing damage to the properties on fire 2, but rather the spread of fire from one property to another and personal safety. In contrast, the New Zealand Fire Service Fire Fighting Water Supplies Code is about adequate water supply for fire fighting. This appears to include for the purpose of reducing damage to the property on fire, as the Code notes the provision of a readily available sufficient water supply will affect the extent to which a fire fighting resource can save life and property. To achieve the objectives set out in clause C1, clauses C2 to C6 of the Building Code sets out functional requirements and performance standards for building and fixture design. These standards cover prevention of fire; prevention of fire affecting areas beyond the source; movement of people to place of safety; and access and safety for fire fighting operations. The standards vary according to the importance level attributed to the building; stricter standards apply to those posing a higher risk to human life or the environment or performing a higher level of societal benefit. Standards also vary according to whether sprinklers are installed or not. There are also exceptions to the standards for certain types of buildings. Relevant standards include: C3.3 Buildings must be designed and constructed so that there is a low probability of fire spread to other property vertically of horizontally across a boundary. C4.1 Buildings must be provided with an effective means of giving warning of fire and visibility in escape routes complying with clause F6. C5.5 Buildings must be provided with the means to deliver water for fire fighting to all parts of the building (however this does not apply to some types of buildings including detached dwellings). The Building Code also sets out a series of verification methods for different risk groups (types of development) which provide a means of complying with the Building Code standards in clauses C1 to C6. The Acceptable Solutions cover matters such as escape routes, firecell size and fire safety systems. Single household units and small multi-unit dwellings are covered by Acceptable Solution C/AS1. Fire alarms are required but most single household units will be consistent with Acceptable Solution C/AS1 without provision of sprinklers. In contrast, the Acceptable Solutions for high risk groups may require alarms, sprinklers and smoke control systems. Building hydrants (designed in accordance with NZS 4510) are also required for some types of buildings, for example, permanent accommodation such as apartments may require hydrants, depending on the escape heights. 2 However, the Building Code does apply stricter standards to buildings with societal benefits. 7

There is a crossover between the New Zealand Fire Service Firefighting Water Supplies Code of Practice and the Building Code in that any building hydrants required under the Building Code require sufficient water pressure, while the New Zealand Fire Service Firefighting Water Supplies Code of Practice specifies water pressure requirements for the reticulated water supply. There is also an overlap to the extent that they both address when sprinklers may be required in buildings. 2.6 CONSULTATION AND RESEARCH The following investigations have been carried out to identify the best approach to dealing with the issues which have generated as a result of requiring compliance with the Code. Initial research and consultation was undertaken with NZFS, stakeholders and previous developers to inform the development of an issues and options paper. Further data was collected on the risk of structural fires. A technical working group consisting of the NZFS and Council staff further considered the issues and options paper. Targeted consultation was undertaken with key community contacts, developers and iwi groups. This focused on their views on acceptable treatment options and their level of personal risk acceptance, especially for unreticulated dwellings. A diverse range of community views were received on whether Council should impose the Code on unreticulated dwellings. A common response was that people preferred to have the flexibility to choose what they saw as being the most appropriate measures for their own personal situation. However an architect strongly supported sprinklers in new developments and was not opposed to Council regulation. They would continue to promote this option in their own work. Those consulted would generally welcome education and advocacy of risk mitigation options. 2.7 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Following on from this targeting consultation, Plan Change 56, once notified, is open for submissions until (date to be confirmed). Submissions can be made by sending a written submission to Gisborne District Council, PO Box 747, Gisborne 4040; or by delivering the submission to the Council offices in Gisborne or Te Puia Springs. Submission must be made using the prescribed form. After the submission period has closed, a summary of all submissions will be created and an opportunity for further submissions will be made available. Following this, a Council officer s report will be prepared. It will take into consideration the submissions received and whether any changes to the proposed plan change should be made. A hearing will then be held. Any submitters that indicated they wanted to present their submission in person to the hearings committee will be given the opportunity to do so. Following the hearing 8

a decision about whether PC56 is accepted will be made. If any submitter opposes the decision, they will have an opportunity to make an appeal to the Environment Court. 2.8 INCORPORATION OF THE CODE INTO THE DISTRICT PLAN The requirement to adhere to the Code has applied to subdivisions in nonreticulated areas since 2008, when Plan Change 28 introduced Rule 12.6.13. 12.6.13 Fire Services That in non-reticulated areas, sufficient water volume (storage) will be available to all lots for fire fighting purposes in accordance with the New Zealand Fire Service Fire Fighting Water Supplies Code of Practise SNZ 4509:2003. A requirement for fire fighting water supply in reticulated areas was previously in Chapter 14, but did not directly reference the Code (refer below). Instead it required an adequate supply for fire fighting purposes. In practice, as supported by the Engineering Code of Practice which refers to the Code, adequate can be taken to mean the Code (or an earlier version of the Code). 14.11.20 Water Supply There must be an existing public water system, being a system which: Consists of riser mains where the costs of providing such are cheaper than the costs of individual connections to the main; Is within or contiguous to the land to be subdivided or developed; and Is available to adequately provide for the supply of water to all of the lots in the subdivision or development including water for fire fighting purposes. Plan Change 42, which was notified in October 2010, amended and moved Rules 12.6.13 and 14.11.20 and made them a general infrastructure requirement under Chapter 8. By directly referencing the Code and sitting the new rule in Chapter 8, Plan Change 42 clarified that the Code now applies in both reticulated and nonreticulated areas, and to all developments, not just subdivision. The new rule 8.13.5 reads: 8.13.5 Water Supply a) Water Supply within the Gisborne Urban Area Boundary i. Sites for any activity that will require a water supply shall be provided with a connection or connection point to the Council reticulated water system. ii. Fire fighting water supply shall be provided in accordance with the New Zealand Fire Service Fire Fighting Water Supplied Code of Practice 2008 SNZ PAS 4509:2008. b) Water Supply Outside the Gisborne Urban Area Boundary i. Sites for any activity that will require a water supply shall be provided with a safe and potable supply of water. 9

ii. Sufficient water supply shall be available for fire fighting purposes in accordance with the New Zealand Fire Service Fire Fighting Water Supplies Code of Practice SNZ 4509:2008. The supporting policy and assessment criteria are as follows: 8.8 Policies (Works and Services) Water 8. To ensure there is adequate supply of water in terms of volume and quality for the anticipated land use, including provision of fire fighting supply. 8.14.6 Assessment Criteria : Water In regard to the provision of infrastructure for water supply when considering whether to grant consent or impose conditions in respect of any subdivision or resource consent, Council shall have regard to, but not be limited by, the following matters: Whether adequate capacity is available in the existing reticulated system to serve the anticipated land use, including the requirements of fire fighting supply The use of a standard recognised by Council and best practice for the design and construction of water supply systems. The NZFS submitted in support of these provisions and they were adopted in July 2011. As the supporting policies and assessment criteria do not suggest that alternative options to the application of the Code may be acceptable, it would be difficult for Council to approve developments that do not comply. New developments in the reticulated area are assessed by Council utilities staff at Building Consent stage. Specific monitoring of every development is not carried out. However, most houses will be in compliance with the Code due to the standard 90 metre spacing of the hydrants and the water pressure in the reticulated network. Individual assessment is also undertaken for proposals that raise concerns with staff. Approximately fifteen developments outside of the reticulated boundary have been assessed for compliance with Rule 8.13.5 in 2012. All but one of the developments proposed tanks or sprinklers to comply with the Rule, the outstanding development required resource consent. The majority of the developments that were required to comply with this rule were identified during the assessment of building consents by the resource consent planners as opposed to resource consent applications submitted to Council by the developers. There is an informal Council initiated waiver for accessory buildings, and extensions or alterations to a building are dealt with via existing use rights. 10

3.0 IDENTIFICATION OF OPTIONS 3.1 EXISTING STATUTORY AND POLICY FRAMEWORK FOR THE REVIEW Resource Management Act 1991 Territorial authorities have the following functions under the RMA: 31 Functions of territorial authorities under this Act 1) Every territorial authority shall have the following functions for the purpose of giving effect to this Act in its district: a) The establishment, implementation, and review of objectives, policies and methods to achieve integrated management of the effects of the use, development or protection of land and associated natural and physical resources of the district. b) The control of any actual or potential effects of the use, development, or protection of land. The Council is given these functions for the purpose of promoting the sustainable management of natural and physical resources, which is defined: 5(2) In this Act, sustainable management means managing the use, development, and protection of natural and physical resources in a way, or at a rate, which enables people and communities to provide for their social, economic, and cultural wellbeing and for their health and safety while a) Sustaining the potential of natural and physical resources (excluding minerals) to meet the reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations; and b) Safeguarding the life-supporting capacity of air, water, soil and ecosystems; and c) Avoiding, remedying, or mitigating any adverse effects of activities on the environment. District Plan The District Plan sits below the Regional Policy Statement in the hierarchy of RMA plans and policies and is one of the main tools for promoting the purpose of the RMA within the Gisborne District. The RMA requires District Plans to state the objectives for the district, the policies to achieve the objectives and any rules or other methods to implement the policies (sections 75 and 76). The following lists the relevant District Plan provisions for this review. The relevant Issue is as follows: 8.2 Issues 11

8.2.6 Given the diverse nature of the district s environment and communities, it is difficult to prescribe infrastructure and engineering standards that cover all possible development scenarios and aspirations. The supporting objectives are as follows: 8.3 Objectives (Infrastructure) 2. Infrastructure that is designed, located, constructed, operated and maintained to ensure: A safe and healthy environment. The efficient use of energy and resources. Adverse effects are avoided, remedied or mitigated. 3. That infrastructure associated with subdivision, use and development be provided in an integrated and co-ordinated manner to ensure: Compatibility with existing infrastructure networks. Adequate capacity for anticipated land use. Ongoing management and lifecycle costs are taken into account. Unanticipated costs to the community are avoided. The requirements of infrastructure providers are taken into account. Issue 8.2.6 is most applicable to infrastructure specific to fire fighting water supply in the Gisborne District as it highlights the diverse nature of the Gisborne District which is a significant hurdle to providing a one size fits all approach to infrastructure standards. The current objectives are considered to be generally sound in their content and reasoning while also reflecting the requirements of the Plan. The options for addressing these issues and objectives are discussed below. 3.2 POSSIBLE APPROACHES A number of possible approaches or concepts were identified which helped inform the development of detailed options. These were: Sprinklers as opposed to the Code While the Code specifies the use of sprinklers, tanks or other means of storing water on-site (such as swimming pools, streams and dams) as a means of satisfying the Code, the NZ Fire Service s preferred method for fire mitigation for all unreticulated development is the installation of sprinklers. Notwithstanding that, sprinklers are accepted as more effective in unreticulated areas, tanks are commonly preferred by developers, possibly due to the potential for alternative use of the tanks (although this is contrary to the intention of the Code). In the interest of applying the most effective fire mitigation measures, requiring new developments to have sprinklers installed in accordance with NZS4517:2010, as 12

opposed to requiring compliance with the Code, which supports on-site water as an acceptable mitigation measure, would be the most effective approach in unreticulated areas. Subdivisions only not land use There are a number of benefits to imposing the Code at subdivision stage as opposed to building stage. It allows consideration of possible integrated, multi lot options for example, a shared water source where reticulation is not available or sufficient to meet the Code. Another benefit of requiring compliance with the Code at subdivision stage is the removal of the surprise element. As all new subdivisions are required to gain a resource consent, developers can be made aware of the requirement to comply with the Code early on in the consenting process. The Code would only be enforced on new buildings if a consent notice was imposed at subdivision on the lot to require compliance at building stage, which would help to avoid unplanned costs at building stage. Specific requirements could, however, be developed to include additional dwellings and the like in these areas. This approach would mean the Code would not be applied to developments on existing lots. Greater flexibility Further flexibility or discretion over enforcement of the Code is another possible approach. For example, developments that do not comply with the Code could be subject to a restricted discretionary rule to allow consideration of water supply requirements and whether the Code should be enforced. This would need to be supported by a clear framework of policies and/or assessment criteria to guide decision-makers as to when it would be appropriate to depart from the Code. If the Code is applied only at subdivision stage and, as all subdivisions are subject to a consent process, the existing rule requiring compliance with the Code could be removed and additional policies and assessment criteria added. Reticulated only, not non-reticulated areas There is the option of requiring compliance with the Code in reticulated areas only (i.e. within the District Plan s reticulated services boundary). This could be appropriate in the sense that the Code is a standard for urban areas and urban is often equated to reticulated. However we note that some quite densely developed residential areas are not reticulated but might be considered urban. It is structures and buildings outside of the reticulated boundary that generally have additional costs to comply with the Code, as they are required to provide sprinklers and/or a water source for fire fighting purposes. By applying the Code to reticulated areas only many of the issues associated with the current application of the Code could be removed. Activity Specific Rules Another approach is to focus on the types of development that are considered most at risk and where other requirements (e.g. the Building Code) are seen as most lacking. 13

We have identified with the NZFS and other stakeholders that of key concern are: residential townships or other densely populated residential areas without reticulation; and to a lesser extent, but still of significant concern to the NZFS, all unreticulated dwellings. There was less concern about unreticulated industrial or commercial development as the requirements of the Building Code were seen as generally appropriate. Advocacy Education in collaboration with the NZ Fire Service could be a key method to provoke change in the community s perception of the benefits of fire mitigation measures. Educational measures to support fire mitigation measures could include publications and other pamphlets, workshops and supporting any relevant programmes put forward by the NZ Fire Service. Advocacy (also in collaboration with the NZ Fire Service) involves explaining to developers the benefits of fire mitigation early on in the building process, and what the best and most cost effective methods are. Advocacy supports regulatory mechanisms used by Council to manage developments, this proactive mechanism assists in managing sites in a manner that are consistent with the objectives and policies relevant to fire fighting water supply. 3.3 OPTIONS The following tables summarise the benefits, costs, efficiency and effectiveness of each of the options that have been developed to address the identified issues relating to application of the Code through the District Plan. The Options are: Option 1 Retaining the Status Quo (code applies to all development subdivisions, buildings, reticulated and non-reticulated). Option 2 - Delete the rules completely (remove reference to the Code from this section of the District Plan). It is important to note that the Code will still be applied to developments that require Council reticulation as the Engineering Code of Practice also requires compliance with the Code. Option 3 - Limit application of the Code to reticulated subdivisions (remove the requirement for non-reticulated developments and all new builds to meet the Code). Option 4 - Limit application of the Code to reticulated subdivisions and impose consent notices on residential non-reticulated subdivisions to require sprinklers to be installed in new dwelling units. Option 5 - Limit application of the Code to reticulated subdivisions but also require sprinklers to be installed in all non-reticulated dwelling units and reticulated dwellings where the reticulated service does not meet the Code. Advocacy and Education 14

Advocacy and Education form a key part of this proposed Plan Change and is to be considered in combination with each of the proposed options. Educational measures to support fire mitigation measures could include publications and other pamphlets, workshops and supporting any relevant programmes put forward by the NZ Fire Service. At the same time, Council could have an advocacy role in association with the New Zealand Fire Service which might involve explaining benefits of fire mitigation early on in the building process, and what the best and most cost effective methods are to those developing the property. 15

Option 1 - Status Quo, Retain existing provisions (the Code applies to all development subdivisions, buildings, reticulated and non-reticulated) Benefits Costs Risk of acting/not acting if uncertain or insufficient information Efficiency and Effectiveness Requires consistent protection against fire risk as all new developments are required to comply with the Code. Activities that do not comply with the Code can seek resource consent but the policies imply a strict approach to the application of the Code. Awareness of the Code s requirements could continue to increase. Less transitional costs to Council as no new systems would need to be developed. Compliance with Code has additional construction costs for some developments, especially for non-reticulated housing and some types of non-residential development. There are also design costs and consenting costs for new development to meet the Code. Adds another cost to affordable housing development. There is little personal choice for developers. Little opportunity to determine own preferred approach to fire risk. Some may view as overly bureaucratic. We have attempted to get a detailed understanding of the risk of structural fires, (refer Appendix 2), however there may be some limitations to the information that has been gathered. Sprinklers are not a preferred option for many developers. It is recognised that even a small distance from a fire station tanks become ineffective as fires are too advanced by the time fire fighting starts. Many parts of the district are characterised by their remoteness. A good relationship with the NZ Fire Service is being developed as a result of requiring sign off on some applications. 16

Option 2 - Delete the existing Rules and other references to fire fighting water supply in the District Plan Benefits Costs Risk of acting/not acting if uncertain or insufficient information Efficiency and Effectiveness Removing the application of the Code from new developments will reduce the costs of construction and consents especially for nonreticulated residential development and non-residential development. Resistance from the community would be reduced as most concerns have related to the Code s requirements for nonreticulated residential development. Removes an additional cost to affordable housing development in non-reticulated areas. Plan Changes have associated costs attached in terms of staff time, public notification and hearing costs. There may be more significant costs if the Plan Change is appealed. Potential increased risk of adverse effects of fire due to the potential reduced provision of fire fighting infrastructure. We have attempted to get a detailed understanding of the risk of structural fires, (refer Appendix 2), however there may be some limitations to the information that has been gathered. Removes issue of developers choosing to install water tanks in non-reticulated areas to meet the Code which are ineffective for fighting structural fires. Removes duplication with the Engineering Code of Practice in terms of reticulation design. However, while the Engineering Code of Practice requires compliance with the Code for new water reticulation infrastructure, it lacks the teeth of the District Plan and there is more scope to build infrastructure that does not adequately provide for fire fighting, especially if the infrastructure is to remain in private ownership. Allows greater personal choice about how to address the risk of fire, especially in non-reticulated areas. Arguably least effective in meeting the Objective of infrastructure that is design, located, constructed, operated and maintained to ensure a safe and healthy environment. 17

Option 3 - Limit application of the Code to reticulated subdivisions Benefits Costs Risk of acting/not acting if uncertain or insufficient information Efficiency and Effectiveness Removing the application of the Code from all new developments to reticulated subdivisions only will reduce the construction and consenting costs on developers in non-reticulated areas. Resistance from the rural community reduced, at the same time personal choice about how to address the risk is allowed. Plan Changes have associated costs attached in terms of staff time, public notification and hearing costs. There may be more significant costs if the Plan Change is appealed. Potential increased risk of adverse effects of fire due to the potential reduced provision of fire fighting infrastructure. We have attempted to get a detailed understanding of the risk of structural fires, (refer Appendix 2), however there may be some limitations to the information that has been gathered. Removes issue of developers choosing to install water tanks in non-reticulated areas to meet the Code which are ineffective for fighting structural fires. Council s expectations that new reticulated water infrastructure should be designed in accordance with the Code are clearly stated in the District Plan and the Plan provides teeth to enforce this expectation. Removes an additional cost to affordable housing development in non-reticulated townships. Will help to encourage integrated, multi-lot solutions to meeting the Code. Reduces surprise about the Code s requirements by imposing conditions early in the development process. 18

Option 4 - Limit application of the Code to reticulated subdivisions and impose consent notices on residential non-reticulated subdivisions to require sprinklers to be installed in new dwelling units. Benefits Costs Risk of acting/not acting if uncertain or insufficient information Efficiency and Effectiveness Non-residential development will no longer be required to develop site specific solutions were reticulation is insufficient or unavailable. This reduces cost. Reduces surprise about the Code s requirements by imposing conditions early in the development process. Resistance from the rural community reduced because houses built on existing lots subdivided prior to rules would not require compliance with the Code. Will help to encourage integrated, multi-lot solutions to meeting the Code in a reticulated area if the reticulated infrastructure is not sufficient to meet the anticipated land use. Plan Changes have associated costs attached in terms of staff time, public notification and hearing costs. There may be more significant costs if the Plan Change is appealed. Adds an additional cost to affordable housing development in non-reticulated townships. Potential increased risk of adverse effects of fire due to the potential reduced provision of fire fighting infrastructure. We have attempted to get a detailed understanding of the risk of structural fires, (refer Appendix 2), however there may be some limitations to the information that has been gathered. We have not found data to compare losses in residential homes with and without sprinklers Removes the issue of developers choosing to install water tanks for nonreticulated dwellings to meet the Code, which are ineffective for fighting structural fires. Sprinklers will be specifically required. Outside of reticulated areas, this option focuses on the developments that are of most concern i.e. non-reticulated residential dwellings. However, the rate of new development is low and there are few non-reticulated subdivisions. The existing issues of fire spread presented by dense unreticulated development would remain. 19

Option 5 - Limit application of the Code to reticulated subdivisions but also require sprinklers to be installed in all new non-reticulated dwelling units and reticulated dwellings where the reticulated service does not meet the Code. Benefits Costs Risk of acting/not acting if uncertain or insufficient information Efficiency and Effectiveness Non-residential development will no longer be required to develop site specific solutions were reticulation is insufficient or unavailable. This reduces cost. Will help to encourage integrated, multi-lot solutions to meeting the Code in a reticulated area if the reticulated infrastructure is not sufficient to meet the anticipated land use. Plan Changes have associated costs attached in terms of staff time, public notification and hearing costs. There may be more significant costs if the Plan Change is appealed. There are design costs and consenting costs for new development to design appropriate sprinkler systems. Adds another cost to affordable housing development. We have attempted to get a detailed understanding of the risk of structural fires, (refer Appendix 2) however there may be some limitations to the information that has been gathered. We have not found data to compare losses in residential homes with and without sprinklers. Removes the issue of developers choosing to install water tanks for nonreticulated dwellings to meet the Code, which are ineffective for fighting structural fires. Sprinklers will be specifically required. Arguably the most effective option in reducing fire risk, however we lack the data to support the benefits of sprinklers. There is little personal choice for developers. Little opportunity to determine own preferred approach to fire risk. Some may view as overly bureaucratic. 20

4.0 PREFERRED OPTIONS The preceding analysis has shown that the current regulations in the Plan that require compliance with the Code are inappropriate for this district with its varied environments and communities. This is because enforcement of the Code (although only intended as a guide in rural areas) requires costly mitigation measures even in remote areas where the risk of fire spreading to other property is reduced. There is general acceptance that designing new water reticulation to meet the Code is appropriate. However the Code s application to non-reticulated areas and its requirements on non-residential development have been a concern. The NZFS have indicated that they are particularly concerned about unreticulated dwellings. We have considered the option of requiring sprinklers in all new unreticulated dwellings. We have also considered a more focused option of imposing consent notices on non-reticulated subdivision to require sprinklers to be installed when dwellings are built on the lots. However, we are not confident that either option is appropriate. Sufficient data is not currently available on the effectiveness of sprinklers in reducing the damage and spread of fire. We continue to have concerns about the risk of fire spreading in non-reticulated residential areas. However, we note the existing safeguards of the Building Act/Building Code (fire rating requirements for buildings in close proximity to other property) and the yard setback requirements of the District Plan. Furthermore, development rates are low, so the existing issue of fire spread presented by dense unreticulated development will remain. Consultation has also indicated that our community value personal choice in determining how to address the risk of structural fires for non-reticulated dwellings. Limiting the application of the Code to reticulated subdivisions with a significant advocacy role as well as education provided by both Council and the NZ Fire Service, is considered the most appropriate. This option has been identified as the most practical and reasonable in the sense that a number of the issues that have been raised as a result of the application of the Code to non-reticulated areas and all new developments will no longer exist. Issues such as awareness of the Code will be removed as developers are required to gain resource consent for any subdivision and it can be noted early on in the process that there is a requirement for the provision of fire fighting water supply. Affordability also becomes less of an issue as many of the developments will be able to connect to the Council reticulated water system, and where the pressure does not meet the Code, communal approaches can be explored to reduce costs. Option 3 would see the following changes to the text in the Plan: Delete Rule 8.13.5a)(ii) and 8.13.5b)ii): a) Water Supply within the Reticulated Services Boundary: 21