8 June 2023
Media: Radio NZ
Topic: Fire safety in emergency housing
Enquiry
[NOTE: reporter also made enquiries with relevant government agencies and ministers]
Rotorua’s mayor has drawn attn to this in wake of the Loafers Lodge fire. https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/ldr/491199/rotorua-mayor-tania-tapsell-calls-for-urgent-action-after-fatal-lodge-fire
RNZ is NZ’s leading reporter on BWOFs and fire safety
It is a matter of public safety and interest, noting the context is: ‘There had been seven fires at emergency housing or temporary accommodation providers in recent years - including Rotorua's Four Canoes Hotel where high-needs homeless had been housed’ so pls treat this as a general media request, not a LGOIMA that might take weeks to answer.
We request the following be urgently addressed ... RNZ would welcome hearing direct from the mayor and/or compliance control on this:
Noting ‘Tapsell said the council had a responsibility to both visitors and residents to ensure premises were safe, complied with the Building Act and had adequate fire plans in place.’
Essentially, we wish to know:
- if motels being used for emergency housing (the 13 approved by MHUD but ALSO any not approved but being used this way anyway - so 2 categories of provider) have had a ‘CHANGE OF USE’ that would increase their fire protection requirements, or NOT, and so are still only consented as short-term accommodation; and if not, why not
- and WHERE are fire safety minimum standards detailed regards emergency housing within RLDC’s area, as document searches by us have not found them (if there has been no change of use, then the Building Act/Code and usual council building control regs will not [may not?] capture it). Pls provide a link
- and WHAT is the known fire safety systems at each of the 13 approved motels (including what alarm systems, are they connected to FENZ, evacuation and if it is independent per unit (can be affected if multi-storeyed), fire rating between walls (is this 15/15, or 30/30 or more?)
- Is RLDC aware of other councils that have achieved stronger fire safety controls in this space than it has?
RE: ‘A subsequent report highlighted there could be serious injury or death in a fire, Tapsell said, and a dangerous building notice was issued’
I take it from the mayor’s comments the motels used for emergency accomm have not had a ‘change of use’.
Pls correct me if I an wrong OR pls detail in full WHY that is the case; noting where the responsibility lies in the mayor/or RLDC’s view, between it and govt (MHUD or other agency/Parliament).
I note the Commissioners final Decision is 146 pages long but does not once refer to fire, alarm, or evacuation. It only talks about ‘safety’ with respect to neighbour safety, not to emergency housing resident safety in the motels. Why not? Is this an omission that is negative for fire safety in the motels?
I note similarly re lack of any mention of fire safety (alarms, evac etc) in the conditions of consent of the 13 motels [in conditions of consent] Why not? Is this an omission that is negative for fire safety in the motels?
The Site Management Plan (SMP) description does not talk about fire safety. Why not? Is this an omission that is negative for fire safety in the motels?
DO these emergency housing facilities require a Building Warrant of Fitness or not? Or some do (how many/which ones, pls name them) and some don’t. Do those that require a BWOF, have a current BWOF?
Does RLDC have any power to enforce some/any/all emergency housing facilities to install: Smoke alarms any/ each unit, Any other active fire safety system in any/each unit
As this power may vary according to the age of the facility and which Code/regs it was built under, pls detail this
If RLDC does not have such power as above, pls explain why not. I understand motels built late 90s/early 2000s before 2004 Act changes did not require even basic smoke alarms, so unless they are renovated, a council cannot force them to retrospectively fit them. Is that correct?
Also pls advise if fire safety has come up at the 6-monthly talks you must have with MHUD about this, and if so in what respect
OR if RLDC plans to raise it now following Loafers Lodge, and in what respect
Mayor Tapsell is quoted "We have been very firm in our stance with government agencies that it is not acceptable for people to be living in facilities that are not appropriate or safe for long-term accommodation."
Pls provide evidence of RLDC being ‘very firm’ with govt agencies
Eg this might be by releasing emails/letters/records of mtgs
Subsequently shared with RLC by reporter, comment from Community Law CE Sue Moroney:
Regarding emergency (EH) and transitional (TH) housing our understanding of the current situation is:
- EH and TH still do not have binding provider agreements. HUD and MSD are working on these (at our insistence) but fire safety has not been a prominent feature
- This means that EH and TH housing will have only what fire safety measures are required by the Building Act and The Fire and Emergency New Zealand (Fire Safety, Evacuation Procedures, and Evacuation Schemes) Regulations 2018
- These generally only require an evacuation procedure and fire exits.
- Boarding houses are not required by the RTA to have anything other than smoke alarms.
Clearly, more needs to be required for the safety of our most vulnerable.
Response
We provided the following information:
[have] motels being used for emergency housing (the 13 approved by MHUD but ALSO any not approved but being used this way anyway - so 2 categories of provider) had a ‘CHANGE OF USE’ that would increase their fire protection requirements, or NOT, and so are still only consented as short-term accommodation; and if not, why not
No premises being used for emergency housing have been assessed under the change of use consent provisions of the Building Act at this time.
There is currently insufficient legislative guidance or case law specific to emergency housing to determine if motels providing emergency accommodation constitutes a change of use. RLC is awaiting a determination it has requested from MBIE regarding this.
- and WHERE are fire safety minimum standards detailed regards emergency housing within RLDC’s area, as document searches by us have not found them (if there has been no change of use, then the Building Act/Code and usual council building control regs will not [may not?] capture it). Pls provide a link
There are no fire safety minimum standards specific to “emergency housing”.
- and WHAT is the known fire safety systems at each of the 13 approved motels (including what alarm systems, are they connected to FENZ, evacuation and if it is independent per unit (can be affected if multi-storeyed), fire rating between walls (is this 15/15, or 30/30 or more?)
This would require a search of each premise’s property file and collation of the information which would take considerable time so this would have to be processed as a formal LGOIMA request. Please let us know if you wish us to progress that for you.
Regarding connections to FENZ and evacuation plans, you would need to get that information from FENZ.
- Is RLDC aware of other councils that have achieved stronger fire safety controls in this space than it has?
No
RE: ‘A subsequent report highlighted there could be serious injury or death in a fire, Tapsell said, and a dangerous building notice was issued’
See attached FENZ reports relating to the Four Canoes establishment.
I take it from the mayor’s comments the motels used for emergency accomm have not had a ‘change of use’.
Pls correct me if I an wrong OR pls detail in full WHY that is the case; noting where the responsibility lies in the mayor/or RLDC’s view, between it and govt (MHUD or other agency/Parliament).
Correct, there has been no change of use. Please see above regarding the reasons.
I note the Commissioners final Decision is 146 pages long but does not once refer to fire, alarm, or evacuation. It only talks about ‘safety’ with respect to neighbour safety, not to emergency housing resident safety in the motels. Why not? Is this an omission that is negative for fire safety in the motels?
[Please note decision is that of the commissioners, not RLC]
Resource consents give permission for a particular activity but do not specifically cover fire safety. That is covered under Building Act and the decision refers to compliance with the Building Act.
Refer p36 Para 6 “Notes”, refers to “Advice Note 1 re Building Act Requirements”. Advice Notes p42 refers to Building Act. Top of p42.
I note similarly re lack of any mention of fire safety (alarms, evac etc) in the conditions of consent of the 13 motels [in conditions of consent] Why not? Is this an omission that is negative for fire safety in the motels?
As above
The Site Management Plan (SMP) description does not talk about fire safety. Why not? Is this an omission that is negative for fire safety in the motels?
This was part of the conditions of consent that were set by the Commissioners, not RLC.
Refer above re advice note on Building Act.
DO these emergency housing facilities require a Building Warrant of Fitness or not? Or some do (how many/which ones, pls name them) and some don’t. Do those that require a BWOF, have a current BWOF?
Not all may require a BWOF. Premises that have “specified systems” installed (eg elevators, fire systems) do require a compliance schedule and BWOF.
RLC has a risk-based approach to BWOF audits and BWOF audits are up to date.
Does RLDC have any power to enforce some/any/all emergency housing facilities to install: Smoke alarms any/ each unit, Any other active fire safety system in any/each unit
As this power may vary according to the age of the facility and which Code/regs it was built under, pls detail this
Council has the power to ensure that new building work complies with the Building Code. In the case of a change of use, before giving written permission the council must be satisfied on reasonable grounds that under its new use, a building will comply as nearly as reasonably practicable with (limited or all – dependent on type of use) provisions of the Building Code.
RLC is seeking direction from MBIE by way of a determination.
If RLDC does not have such power as above, pls explain why not. I understand motels built late 90s/early 2000s before 2004 Act changes did not require even basic smoke alarms, so unless they are renovated, a council cannot force them to retrospectively fit them. Is that correct?
Alterations and change of use are the two instances when a building must satisfy the reasonable grounds test, as above.
Also pls advise if fire safety has come up at the 6-monthly talks you must have with MHUD about this, and if so in what respect
OR if RLDC plans to raise it now following Loafers Lodge, and in what respect
Yes this has been discussed and motel operators have received correspondence from RLC to remind them of their responsibilities for ensuring they have working fire safety systems.
Mayor Tapsell is quoted "We have been very firm in our stance with government agencies that it is not acceptable for people to be living in facilities that are not appropriate or safe for long-term accommodation."
Pls provide evidence of RLDC being ‘very firm’ with govt agencies
Eg this might be by releasing emails/letters/records of mtgs
We have checked with the Mayor and she has clarified that she was referring to statements she has made/interviews she has given about the need to ensure people needing emergency housing are in safe and appropriate facilities. She was also referring to the work of RLC with Government agencies which has resulted in a Housing Accord that agrees to working together towards better solutions and sets out how this will be achieved.
For additional context, as explained to you, the comments from the mayor reported on 2 June were provided to the reporter by her around 18 May but the story was not published until last week.
You’ll find more about the Accord, and the Accord itself at this link on Council’s website: Rotorua Housing Accord - Rotorua Lakes Council