Combined PMO Forum- Minutes
Meeting Minutes
Combined PMO Forum
Date
17/01/12
Time
3.00pm
Venue
Civic Offices, 53 Hereford Street
Chair
Minutes
Attendees
 – Christchurch City Council
– Christchurch City Council
r – Christchurch City Council
 Waimakariri District Council
– Waimakariri District Council
 – Selwyn District Council
 Selwyn District Council
 Arrow/AMI
– Arrow/AMI
– Arrow/AMI
– Arrow/AMI
– Maxim/FMP
– Maxim/FMP
– Hawkins/IAG
 MWH Mainzeal
– MWH Mainzeal
– Vero
– EQR
 – Ireland Group
Apologies
Nil.
1. Discussion
Item
Discussion
1.
Main objective and direction of meeting
and 
outlined what the main objectives and the direction of this meeting should be to
ensure that these meetings are productive, of high value, globally informative, maintain
expectations, consensus on new legislation/guidlines interpretation, common repair solutions, work
through issues together, resolve differences between TAs for PMOs, understand the timeframes and
deadlines.
It’s all about working together, understanding everyone’s expectations and needs, making decisions
and moving forward.
It was also suggested that we invite other organisations to join the meeting.  These people need to
be in a position where they can make a decision on behalf of CERA, EQC, Insurance Council,
Engineers, DBH.
2.
Agenda and regularity of the meeting
It was decided that this meeting will be a monthly meeting to be held at Civic Offices, 53 Hereford
Street.  Meetings will be held on the third Tuesday of every month from 3:00 - 4:30pm.  An agenda
item request will be sent out 10 days prior to the next meeting requesting additional agenda items,
\\ccofs01\RaineyS$\Desktop\COWG Documents\Combined PMO Forum\Minutes\Combined PMO Forum - Minutes 17.01.2012.doc
1 of 1

---

Combined PMO Forum- Minutes
Item
Discussion
with the final agenda being distributed one week prior to the next meeting.
It was also decided that the Agenda will contain set items, prioritise items, guest speakers on a
particular specific topics, actions for people to investigate and report back, ongoing update from
CCC/WDC/SDW with their systems and processes.
3.
Key issues which have been identified
·  EQC – claims endorsement
·  Retaining walls around the hill suburbs
·  Land remediation
·  No direct line/contact with EQC
·  Need consistency between the three TAs – building, compliance, processes, documentation
needed, exemptions, etc.
·  TC1,2,3 zone changes
4.
CCC Workload
 outlined how CCC are dealing with the extra workload:
·  Currently recruiting for extra staff.
·  New technology and systems have been put in place.
·  “One-Stop-Shop” Rebuild Team will be established.
·  Negotiating with other TAs throughout New Zealand to help deal with spikes.
·  Working with SDC and WDC.
CCC has a new system called Aconex to lodge consents with.  CCC will be doing a training session
with PMOs regarding the new system.  PMOs are also encouraged to have Pre-Application
meetings with Council staff to ensure all documentation is complete and is of acceptable quality.
PMOs are also asked if they could speak to Designers re quality of documentation which will help to
process consents quicker and on time.
There will also be a Project Activity Log through Aconex which PMOs can access to find out “real
time” progress of applications.
It was advised that SDC are also using Aconex and their projects should be transferable with CCC’s
projects.
5.
General Discussion
There was some discussion around TC 1, 2, 3 land zones, levelling of land and land remediation.
These items will be discussed at future meetings when the correct people are in attendance and full
information can be provided.
\\ccofs01\RaineyS$\Desktop\COWG Documents\Combined PMO Forum\Minutes\Combined PMO Forum - Minutes 17.01.2012.doc
2 of 1

---

Combined PMO Forum- Minutes
Action List
Item
Date
Description
Owner
Date
Status
Raised
Due
1
17/1/12
Identify 5 top priorities and forward these to
or
All PMOs
23/1/12
discussion at the next meeting.
2
3
4
5
6
7
3 of 1

---

Meeting Minutes
Combined PMO & TA Forum
Date
21/2/12
Time
3.00pm
Venue
Civic Offices, 53 Hereford Street
Chair
Minutes
Attendees
 
 
 , 
 (Christchurch City Council)
 
 (Waimakariri District Council)
 (Selwyn Distict Council)
 
 
 (DBH)
 (CERA)
 
 (Arrow/AMI)
 
 (Maxim/FMG)
 
 (Hawkins/IAG)
 (MWH/ Mainzeal)
 
 (Vero)
 
 (EQR)
 
 
 
 (Ireland Group)
 
 (Stream Group)
 
 (BRANZ/DBH EAG)
 
 ( EAG)
Apologies
1. Discussion
Item
Discussion
1.
Existing Use Rights
 discussed on the statutory requirements to aid in the Existing Use Rights process
under the Resource Management Act. The Council has a few court rights. It is important to have as
much information on the building being lawfully established before it reaches the court. There is a
new process that came up dealing with commercial buildings in the central city.
He suggested to get involved in the early stage of scoping before costing which will make the
process easier. There is no certificate issued but just a wording in the application. He has small
team who can be help at the start of the process. He is happy to be the contact person. He will email
 the guidance website and his direct dial contact number to be disseminated to all.
There was a question raised on Variation 48 and others which were policy oriented. 
 said the
policy issues will be discussed in another meeting.
2.
Action Items Top 5
Item 1 – 
 to make a presentation on Flood Management Areas in the next meeting.
Item 2 – 
 mentioned that the processing has been slow as there is lots of work to be done
with Insurers.
Item 3 -  There has been meetings with the Council on this.
Item 4 -  
 mentioned that EQC will finalise extent of liability and how they will deliver. There
are 8,000 land damaged. Most were paid in cash. Land repair handled on a case by case basis.
Vast majority is that the land works is not the determining factor apart from others. This is delivered
12/109049
1 of 1

---

Item
Discussion
through the PMO.
There is a new website on geo tech information available. This is written by TNT and uses CERAs
database. This will go live soon. It includes a User Manual and it is easy to use.
Item 6 – considered as top priority item.
Item 5 – has been addressed in today’s meeting.
Items 8- 13 - are building consent issues that will be addressed by 
 in future meeting.
Item 14 – this has been addressed by 
 in today’s meeting.
Item 15 -
Item 16 -
told people to come back to him on top priority items.
3.
TC3 Guidelines
made a brief explanation on TC3 Guidelines. As part of TC3 training, he will put up
an interim guidance on the later part of March which will include approval process.
There was a question on the investigation requirements needed on TC3. As well as the
inconsistency of assessments done by Engineers and Geo Tech.  He mentioned that such concerns
can handled in a training like the one he conducted last January where they discussed a case study
with the PMOs. He is looking  again at having a ½ day workshop which will be open to PMOs  and to
those who are interested for couple of sessions and to initiate a Train the Trainor concept. The
workshop aims to familiarise participants to the 3 types of solutions.
 and 
 will present a workshop. 
 will provide the mailing list.
4.
PMO Monthly Projections
 has asked the insurance companies on the data, quantities on rebuild repairs, methodologies
and time frames. 
will present in the next meeting.
5.
Agency Updates
CERA
 gave a copy of the 40 rebuild forums.  The forums were established to handle issues and focus
on resourcing the rebuild. At present, there is the Working Group.  But eventually there will also be
a Steering Group which will look at commercial strategic level, Rebuild Focus Group, Operations
Group and Commercial Group.
 asked to email him any feedback and he will let forward it to 
DBH
mentioned that they currently involved with:
 - EAG
-  implementation of licensing of building practioners by 1 March. Conducting seminars.
12/109049
2 of 1

---

Item
Discussion
-  building investigation on CTV
-  reviewing on crime building
-  issues on guidance on forums
5.
Next Meeting
Tuesday 20 March, 3pm, Function Room, 1st floor, Civic Offices, 53 Hereford Street.
Retaining Walls -
12/109049
3 of 1

---

Action List
Item
Date
Description
Owner
Date
Status
Raised
Due
1
21/02/12 
Discussion of Top Priority
Al PMOs
2
Feedback on 40 Rebuild Forums to be emailed to 
Al PMOs
3
Contact details of 
 
 and website
on Existing New Rights.
4
Mailing list for TC3 Workshop by 
 and 
 
5
Collect technical issues on TC3
6
7
12/109049
4 of 1

---

Meeting Minutes
Combined PMO & TA Consenting Operations Working Group Meeting
Date
20/3/12
Time
3.00pm
Venue
Civic Offices, 53 Hereford Street
Chair
Minutes
Attendees
 (Christchurch City Council)
(Selwyn Distict Council)
DBH)
 (CERA)
,  (Arrow/AMI)
 (Hawkins/IAG)
s (MWH/ Mainzeal)
(Vero)
(EQR)
 (Ireland Group)
(Stream Group)
 ( EAG)
( LUMLEY)
 (Mainland Claims – Lumley)
(Hawkins)
(IAG)
Apologies
1. Discussion
Item
Discussion
1.
Previous minutes (12/109049)
 reminded the group on Terms of Reference to ensure that this group focused on specific
issues not already under consideration at other groups
recapitulated the topics discussed during previous minutes.
 1. 
 discussed guidelines on building consents
 2. 
 talked about  revisions on TC3 and PMO projections
 3. 
gave CERA updates
 4.
 discussed DBH updates
2.
Previous Action Items & Priority Items
Refer to the table below for priority items.
3.
PMO Monthly Projections
 gave an update on the Halswell project which consists of 21 properties. He reported
positive outcomes of meetings held with community members and geotech engineers. He stressed
the necessity of finalising the MOU and project plan as crucial factors in starting pilot works.
12/109049
1 of 1

---

Item
Discussion
4.
New Action Items
There were no items to add to the actions list
5.
Agency Updates
- CERA
Summary of work currently undertaken by associate groups
advised that EQC and PMOs are holding regular meetings to discuss geotechnical issues.
Green Zone Geotechnical Database
 briefly explained the work currently progressing with the development of a geotechnical
database to capture various tests and reports for properties in Canterbury.
There is no time frame yet with regards to making the database live.
- DBH
DBH  is working with policy on temporary housing demand.
mentioned that there had been good progress with the development of TC3 guidance and
there would soon be information available to PMOs in the form of a TC3 guidance document.
will address the group at the next meeting regarding this guidance.
 discussed aspects of the revised guidance on repairing and rebuilding houses affected by the
Canterbury earthquake sequence.
 mentioned that there had been some inconsistencies regarding the application of the
guidance.
There was a question to clarify whether CCC needs more detailed geotechnical assessments in
areas classified within TC2. 
said that if typical TC2 testing reveals less than typical TC2
ground conditions a greater level of investigation would be required.
 mentioned that TC boundaries can change depending on the availability of geotechnical
information and as a bigger picture develops from multiple tests.
6.
General Business
Geotechnical reports
advised that the Christchurch City Council had made a technical decision on the life
of geotechnical reports after seeking professional geotechnical advice.
The Council would not apply an expiry period on any geotechnical report or testing.
Buildings should be designed to withstand any reasonably foreseeable changes in ground conditions
that might be expected over the life of the building. In flat land residential areas changes to the
ground characteristics would be minimal and not affect a typical housing structure with the exeption
12/109049
2 of 1

---

Item
Discussion
of larger siesmic events that may cause more than minor settlement or lateral spread. If these
events occur between the production of a report and the issue of a consent The Council may ask
that the author of the report confirm its suitability.
What is important is that the design submitted for consent complements the geotechnical report.
Where the 2 arent complimentary delays can occur in issuing consents.
The situation is slightly different for commercial sites where activities on adjoining sites can affect
the properties of the ground supporting larger structures. These larger structures are generally more
sensitive to changes in ground characterisitcs.
CCC EQ Prone Building Policy
A comment was made on the need for guidance in the building consent process in strengthening of
buildings. 
replied that guidance is published on the CCC website.
 advised that he
would arrange for 
, the CCC Engineering Services Manager, to attend in the
future for question and answers.
Consent and Code Compliance Certificate Time Frames
There was a question on the consent time frames at CCC and it was suggested that it was currently
taking six weeks to process some consents. 
replied that this was not typical and that most
PMO consents are issued within 10 days. The use of Aconex greatly improves overall times to issue
so applicants are encouraged to start using that process.
There would have been some issues why some building consents take a longer time to process e.g.
handing in a substandard application. He asked to be provided with details of the properties with
pending building consents so he can investigate.
With regards to Code Compliance  process, 
 said they have identified some areas for
improvement and have made corrective measures including the appointment of 4 additional staff
processing CCC’s. Aconex helps to speed up the process in this area as well. He emphasised that
the efficiency in processing applications depends on the quality of applications.
7.
Next Meeting
Tuesday 17 April, 3pm, Function Room, 1st floor, Civic Offices, 53 Hereford Street.
12/109049
3 of 1

---

Item
Date
Top Priorities for resolution
Owner
Individuals
Status
Raised
group
1
21/02/12
Geotechnical - Lidar / TT info release / Flood zoning
TA’s
discussed Flood Management Areas
(info sharing)
CCC
and Variation 48
(See also item 9 below)
There was a question about access of LIDAR
information. 
 replied that the LIDAR data
is owned by EQC and EQC is currently analysing the
data; once EQC is satisfied with data quality EQC will
release the LIDAR data which will eventually be made
public.
 advised that it is important to remember that the
boundary of flood management plains is not the same
as the flood risk boundary. There were significant
changes since after the February earthquakes.
A question was also raised regarding the extent of
potential ground remediation. 
 replied that
program for fixing land drainage for example could be
tricky as the affected area can be extensive.
2
21/02/12
Quantity of claim endorsements - EQC
Insurers
Item to be removed - Matter for regulatory working
-EQC
group
3
21/02/12
Temp accommodation (contractor & homeowners
Insurers
Item to be removed - Matter for other groups (rebuild
needing to move for repairs or rebuilds)
resourcing)
4
21/02/12  Land - Repair / Remediation - EQC
Insurers
Responded - 
 mentioned that EQC will
-EQC
finalise extent of liability and how they will deliver.
There are 8,000 land damaged properties. Most were
in the Red Zone. Land repair handled on a case by
case basis. Vast majority is that the land works is not
the determining factor apart from others. This is
delivered through the PMO.
Item to be removed - Matter for Regulatory Working
Group
5
21/02/12  What is the current stance regarding existing user
TA’s -
Predominantly
Resolved - CCC response, Planning Team Leader
rights?
CCC Issue –
 discussed existing use rights in
12/109049
4 of 1

---

Item
Date
Top Priorities for resolution
Owner
Individuals
Status
Raised
group
CCC
depth at the meeting. 
 is available to handle
queries and there is information available on the
Christchurch City Council website.
6
21/02/12  Retaining walls - EQC
Insurers /
Mostly relates to apportionment of works
PMO’s
A question was raised whether the Council has an
asset registry to facilitate identification of property
ownership in relation to application of building
consents.
 
 responded that any information
Christchurch City Council has on private retaining
walls would be held on each property file rather than
on an overall register. This will only exist where
council has had consent applications for the works.
7
21/02/12  Pilot projects - Combined insurers
PMO’s
 
 gave an update on the Halswell project
/PMOs/CERA/EQC etc
which consists of 21 properties. He reported positive
outcomes of meetings held with community members
and geotech engineers. He stressed the necessity of
finalising the MOU and project plan as crucial factors
in starting pilot works.
8
21/02/12  CCC’s ‘plan’ for consenting process, resources,
CCC
Resolved - 
 discussed CCC position here.
timelines etc. (and the potential use of external peer
Regular updates will be given over time
reviews to expedite the process)
9
21/02/12  Flood management Areas
TA’s -
 
 discussed Variation 48. 
 explained
Variation 48 level requirements in Christchurch.
CCC
that Variation 48 is CCC’s response to calibrate the
(potentially in connection with Impact of EQC land
effects of extreme rainfall and sea level rise which are
repairs)
associated with climate change. Variation 48 identifies
areas of the city subject to greater risks of flooding as
(To be combined with item number 1 as a related
Flood Management Areas. Variation 48 was
issue)
completed in January 2011, however, it is being
updated to include the effects of the 22 February
earthquake to the ground level.
12/109049
5 of 1

---

Item
Date
Top Priorities for resolution
Owner
Individuals
Status
Raised
group
Buildings within the Flood Management Areas will
require resource consent.
10
21/02/12  Consent triggers (what constitutes a significant
TA’s
 
 will coordinate a collaborative response from
repair)
the 3 councils to clarify what works need building
consent.  A draft of the guidance when building work
to repair earthquake damaged residential buildings
requires a building consent was provided.
said
that CCC will finalise the document and will make it
available on the CCC website.
11
21/02/12  Consent requirements/intended scope of review for
TA’s
 explained CCC take on this, TA’s agreed to get
house lifting methodologies.
together to produce guidance aligned between TA’s
12
21/02/12  Requirement for repairs to be completed to current
TA’s
 explained CCC take on this, TA’s agreed to get
code, rather than replaced as was or bought up to a
together to produce guidance aligned between TA’s
% of code (I’m thinking insulation, bracing,
foundation repairs etc.)
13
21/02/12  Building consent exemptions
TA’s
The 1st Schedule of the Building Act explains what is
exempt as of right plus clause k allows for
discretionary exemptions by TA’s. The DBH provides
comprehensive guidance – Guidance document
available on the departments website.
Councils are producing guidance also. (Item to remain
on this list until guidance issued)
Advice is that if you arent sure then check with the TA.
14
21/02/12  TC3 foundation options - guidelines
DBH
 advised that the Engineering Advisory
Group is still working to produce the TC3 guidance
and it should be available about mid-April.
15
21/02/12  Hill Suburb retaining walls
Insurers /
Refer item 6
PMOs
16
21/02/12  Consistency between the 3 TA’s
TA’s
Item to be removed – This is ongoing – The 3 TA’s will
be continuously working together and this group
meeting will tease out any consistency issues and
stimulate colaberation between TA’s.
12/109049
6 of 1

---

Action List
Item
Date
Description
Owner
Date
Status
Raised
Due
1
21/02/12 
Discussion of Top Priority
All PMOs
Resolved - Top priority list established and will be ongoing
2
21/02/12 
Contact details of
and website
Resolved –
on Existing Use Rights.
Website info at -
http://www.ccc.govt.nz/homeliving/buildingplanning/resource
consents/resourcemanagementpamphlets.aspx
Look for PDF to right of page in blue box
3
21/02/12 
Mailing list for TC3 Workshop by 
 has advised 
 
 to copy the
mailing list to 
4
21/02/12 
Collect technical issues on TC3
Ongoing 
 reminded PMO’s to advise technical
issues.
5
6
12/109049
7 of 1

---

Meeting Minutes
Combined PMO & TA Consenting Operations Working Group Meeting
Date
17/04/2012
Time
3.00pm
Venue
Civic Offices, 53 Hereford Street
Chair
Minutes
Attendees
 (Christchurch City Council)
 
 
 
 (DBH)
 
 (EQR)
 
 (Vero)
 
 (MWH Mainzeal)
 
 (Hawkins/IAG)
 
 (Arrow Internationl)
 
 (Southern Response)
 
 (Arrow International)
 
(IGL/Lumley)
 
 (Beca)
 
 
 
 (EAG)
 
 (CERA)
1. Apologies
1. Discussion
Item
Discussion
2.
PREVIOUS MINUTES (12/166928)
·  Earlier Minutes Requested
· 
(DBH) Resources offered in the interim until official minute taker is found.
 to follow up)
3.
AGENCY UPDATES:
(CERA):
·  Insurers & EQC making progress towards a resolution. Wont be a significant holdup.
· Synergine On behalf of Lumleys undertaking issues to be resolved.
·  Resolution on repair methodologies will be months away.
·  Joint Geotech testing appointed Synergine to develop a more robust proposal, First stage a
week away
·  EQC testing first pilot block. Testing on roads, not on private land
·  Regulatory testing working through flood levels
·  DBH doing work on clarifying sections/guidelines on TC3
·  Briefing from EQC to insurers on bare land obligations
·  Interacts with foundation design / Rebuild resources forum – Material supply
·  Temporary accommodation – no conclusion
·  Green zone database – technical house, launch date the 27th April, same as TC3 guidelines
·  Awaiting confirmation from EQC for a database of land damage (what they can be released)
·  Orbit from Tonkin an Taylor
·  CERA database is separate from orbit. More user friendly. – presentation next meeting, other
members welcomed.  Contact for database – CERA
·  AGS format for data. Over time the same format can go into other software systems.
12/109049
1 of 1

---

Item
Discussion
      EQC and council needs funding to convert system to a more compatible format.
      Will be required to be AGS data specification in 3 months
 
 (DBH):
·  Identifying CTV similar buildings and informing owners, also apart of the Royal commission
enquiry
·  DBH & CERA are working through accommodation issues, Permanent, temporary work and
residents issues. Preferably they would like to let the market provide. For displaced residents -
a new temporary village will be available during repairs. Encourage PMO’s to advise this is
available. Accomadation will be a big issue.
 
 (DBH / EAG):
·  Training in guidance on EQ repairs. TC1’s, TC2’s. Register for training ( through PMO, CCC).
Engineer advisors will be presenting.
· 
 working on case studies similar to tests run in 2010,2011 presented to the training
readers/PMOs. Case studies available electronically for hubs and BCA’s.
· 
 
  is  available for consultation on applications
       Contact: 
·  Draft guidance on TC3 Peer reviewed this morning.
o  Lighter is better
o  More clarity in areas
o  More cautionary areas identified
o 
There is concern that it may suit insurance but wont work in all places.
o  Conservative pile capacity.
o  Challenges are wrapping up.
·  Briefing senior consenting staff last six weeks. Careful and deliberate consent review required
for TC3 foundations. For BCA’s, what the change in process will be for TC3’s. Sole reliance on
producer statements may not be appropriate. TC3 application highlighted areas where a more
structured application process may be required.
·  Integrating for geotech and structural reviews. Higher geotech monitoring required.
QUESTIONS / COMMENTS / DISCUSSION:
Q : When reading documents in repairs, if  there is a slight reduction of damage it leads to easy
repair. Is there a lessening of criteria to repair damage?
A: A fair summary to be clear part of the breakthrough. Start looking at damage then repair ground.
If the damage is minor but may  be influenced by the 22nd February. There may be conscious
relaxation that is justified by repairs meeting the building code.
Q: Areas where insurers may be reluctant to buy into it?
A: Not yet. Opportunity has not been provided for insurers to respond or not being prepared to fund
the work. Every case will be different. It may be uneconomical to repair with collective cost.
Land remediation issues with EQC can potentially be  affected by the wording on policy’s between
insurers,
C: Fletchers is looking at information on 800 properties in the TC3 zone. They have found 124 they
are repairing / repaired in North New Brighton, where the damage falls into the minor category.
Inspections were completed, not one was dealt with incorrectly.
12/109049
2 of 1

---

Item
Discussion
C: There are many properties in the TC3 zone that are immediately repairable. More information
should be provided, sooner rather than later.
Q:  There is a TC3 requirement to do geotech testing, but is there a need for allowing shallow
geotech tests, will these be sufficient?
A: A New building has to comply with the Building code regardless. If tests can prove it complies it
may not be required. However if extensively damaged, this is a good indication more intrusive
testing is required. The fundamentals are : what are you trying to prove? The Building Code needs
to be satisfied.
Q:  For new building consent applications where no geotech has been provided will it be turned
down by the CCC?
A: What will need to be provided when applying in practice is written information to back  the design
/ a written methodology. There may be lots of reasons for non typical application. 
 
is available to discuss what will be required by the CCC with the PMO’s where there is uncertainty.
C: Bring examples, photos, to work through what council needs. 
 is putting together a power -
point for action items. Advise
via email if there is anything to add. More information brought to
the forum the better. Leave badges at the door, come as allies to get the rebuild to happen. The
more efficient the process the better.
C: While working on the TC3 guidelines a lot of geotech results were having to be parked. Once the
document is released solutions will be worked through for rebuilds and repairs
C: CCC Is receptive to guideline options for geotech & structural rather than CCC being road-
blocked. Could potentially use 
 s Engineering group to review.  If the engineers sign the design
CCC  will approve. Engineer’s will put a fingerprint on the design .
Debate in geotech, what geotech is telling you for structural elements. Consistency is a challenge
·  Endorsed peer review
·  Economically sensible
4.
PREVIOUS ITEMS & PRIORITY ITEMS
Refer to priority items table below
5.
PMO MONTHLY PROJECTIONS
 
 (DBH / EAG):
·  Working on case studies for TC3 low mobility. Case data in domain. Will enquire if Lumley
happy to have PMO’s included.
·  Test case would be great further down the track.
·  Heads up to TA’s, if  there are any changes let CCC know (To go to 
 with as much up
front info as possible)
Fletcher Construction:
·  Moving to Building consents. The priority is over 50k. This target to be completed by 2013.  It is
hard to see properties at 50K, 60K, 80K not needing consent. 30,40k has not required consent.
Less then 10% needs a  building consent.
·  Current rate of completions  is up to 80 houses a day. 14000  have been completed.
·  Are setting up a tech hub. The chief engineer is gathering expertise from architects, geotech
engineers & structural engineers. They will work through the TC3 guidelines.
·  There will be a suite of solutions for repairs not just for foundations, wall claddings e.t.c.
·  The updated guidance document could provide a huge resource.
12/109049
3 of 1

---

Item
Discussion
·  Could lead to schedule 1K solutions and a more streamlined process.
·  Happy to discuss this.
Lumley’s:
·  Forecasting a spike in 3-4 months time subject to settlement  EQC funds, 240 with 80% that will
need a building consent.
·  Unsure of what district’s  these will be in. Mainly Christchurch.
6.
GENERAL BUSINESS / NEW ACTION ITEMS
 
 (Arrow Internationl):
·  Key points on contaminated sites. Geotechs’s have been alerted to issues. Spoken with ECAN
and are investigating maps for contaminated sites. CCC provide CERA information on this.
·
ECAN update: They have (CCC, CERA & ECAN) identified contaminant solutions. That
information will be available in 3 weeks then progress to TC3, TC2, & TC1 areas.CCC has
information available now for 500 properties.
·  Political sensitivity issue to be resolved.
·  A map to identify properties would be useful
· 
 will look into with GIS. Currently there is varying degrees of information. Could potentially
have been redevelopment on title and site may be contaminated, but CCC are not aware.
·  Red zone is key with health and safety issues.
·  If map is not available, they will look into other options,
Q:  Are these sites contaminated due to liquefaction?
A: No. mainly Industrial sites that have previously been landfill areas, petrol stations e.tc.
Leaky Buildings
One property halfway through repairs it was uncovered that is was a leaky building. Could be a legal
nightmare. This has been identified as high risk
Q: Question to PMO’s, what is the policy on leaky buildings?
Fletchers – Not delved into legal situations. Provided policy is up to the homeowners to take action.
It is not appropriate for Fletchers to provide advice. EQC cash out.
Consenting and exemption:
·  Waimak &  Selwyn district representatives are not here. For exemptions, Selwyn and Waimak
have process to see the site and make a call.
·  CCC not currently to engage in site visits. There are no resources to do so for the large number
there could be. Building professionals can make a call and provided CCC with photos. For
common situations could engage in activity common to multiple sites but not every site. This
would delay consents. CCC will provide advice to enable Building professionals to make a call.
BA Schedule 1:
·  Material presented to CCC to help make a decision.
·  Option to place information on the property file was desired. 
mentioned that CCC had
considered and would develop a means to facilitate that need.
·  Fletcher’s have elected for a more formal process of documenting their exemption decisions and
tabled their process documents.
·  CCC would offer to accept notices of exempt work via Aconex and training is available on
Wednesday’s  from  1- 3pm at  53 Hereford street. PMO’s are encouraged to advise their
designers etc that this is available. Contact [email address]
12/109049
4 of 1

---

Item
Discussion
7
ROUND TABLE:
 
 (EAG):
·  This meeting is a place to access advise from CCC and to bring case studies. Take advantage
of the opportunity’s in this meeting. The DBH is also here to support.
·  PMO’s are getting the easier jobs done. It may be a few weeks before issues arise.
 
 (IGL/Lumley):
·  Would like to see repair solutions (from PMO’s) In TC3 guidelines there is an emphasis on not
shifting building of property, but can  potentially work under building. Keen to hear of
methods/experience for remediation work.
·  Methods will come to light. TC3 proposed in guidelines lean towards taking  the buildings off
site.
 
 (Arrow International):
·  Stabilising building document has been given to the department of labour. They have given a
verbal ok. Sign off will be in 6 weeks. Working not stabilised issues. Working ring foundation
issues under TC3.
·  Possible to lift off concrete slab. Can be more straightforward.
 
 (IGL/Lumley):
·  House to be lifted is 1.5 ft deep then could be 8 ft deep. Would like to look at different ways on
managing this.
 
 (Arrow International):
·  When lifting off the slab and holding building – the timber floor can be built then carted away.
This Can be recycled. Should not  be demoing where it can be reused.
8.
NEXT MEETING: 15th June 3:00 until 4:30 CCC Hereford St
·  Presenting TC3 & example documentation.
· 
 will attend next month on EQ prone building policy.
· 
 Exemption presentation
· 
 
 Canterbury Geotechnical Database presentation.
 to follow up with other TA’s for attendance at the next meeting
12/109049
5 of 1

---

Action List
Item
Date
Top Priorities for resolution
Owner
Individuals
Status
Raised
group
1
21/02/12
Geotechnical - Lidar / TT info release / Flood
TA’s
 
Partly Resolved - 
 
 presentation on Flood
zoning (info sharing)
CCC
 
Management Areas.
CERA
 
Additional information to be shared as developments
Flood management Areas
occur.
Variation 48 level requirements in Christchurch.
Discussions are being held at the regulatory working
(potentially in connection with Impact of EQC land
group meetings. 
 
 can keep this group up to
repairs)
date on those discussions.
2
21/02/12  Retaining walls - EQC
Insurers /
Mostly relates to apportionment of works
PMO’s
Ongoing
 
 to provide info from CCC.
3
21/02/12  Pilot projects - Combined insurers
PMO’s
Arrow - 
 
 
Ongoing - PMO’s to continue discussions.
/PMOs/CERA/EQC etc
17/4: 
 
 advises MOU has been sent to
insurers for signing. . The project steering group
agreeing to progress geotech investigation and how to
split costs. This has been slow.
4
21/02/12  Consent triggers (what constitutes a significant
TA’s
 
 
TA’s are to produce guidance aligned between TA’s
repair)
 
5
21/02/12  Consent requirements/intended scope of review for
TA’s
TA’s are to produce guidance aligned between TA’s
house lifting methodologies.
6
21/02/12  Requirement for repairs to be completed to current
TA’s
TA’s are to produce guidance aligned between TA’s
code, rather than replaced as was or bought up to a
% of code (Insulation, bracing, foundation repairs
etc.)
7
21/02/12  Building consent exemptions
TA’s
Councils are producing guidance. (Item to remain on
this list until guidance issued)
Advice is that if you arent sure then check with the TA.
8
21/02/12  TC3 foundation options - guidelines
DBH
TC3 guidance under development.
 
 will present on this at the next
meeting.
12/109049
6 of 1

---

Meeting Minutes
Combined PMO and TA Forum
Date
15/5/12
Time
3.00pm
Venue
Civic Offices, 53 Hereford Street
Chair
 
Minutes
 
Attendees
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 - Christchurch City Council
 
 
 
 - MWH Mainzeal
 
 - Vero
 
 - EAG
 
 - Beca
 
 - IAG
 
 
 
 - Hawkins/IAG
 
 
 
 - Arrow
 
 - EQR
 
 - DBH
 
 - HNZC
 
 
 
 - Stream
 
 - EAG/DBH
 
 - CERA
Apologies
 
 - IAG
 
 - Stream
1. Discussion
Item
Discussion
1.
Agency Updates
CERA:
 
 discussed the Regulatory Working Groups current activity and later gave a demonstration
of the Canterbury Geotechnical Database. Time was limited so he will show again in the next
meeting.
DBH:
 discussed the work currently being done by the DBH. Introduction of the TC3
guidance document was a key piece of work the DBH were focused on.
]
2.
Previous Actions & Priority Items
Updated.
3.
PMO Monthly Projections
Council has noticed activity has increased in the last two weeks including the volume of consents
through Aconex.  Working with other Councils to remotely process for the City Council (Hastings,
Wellington).  Council has been actively promoting with applicants the use of the Aconex system.
‘Go Ahead’ newsletter is another promotion tool the Council uses, if you wish to be added to the
distribution list please ema
.  The Council has recently starting
promoting the need for building consents in the community through the ‘Go Ahead’ campaign.
Most residential consents are being processed within 10 working days (though Aconex system).
It was queried about the timeframe of processing Code Compliance Certificates.  It was stated that
the PMO Service agreement is 10 working days.  It was noted that the inspections and Code
Compliance Certificates system is being moved into the Aconex system to have a clearer view of
what is going on with the consent.   Inspectors are now being pro-active and obtaining design
1 of 3

---

Item
Discussion
statements during the inspection process, if there are any issues with the documents it can be
addressed at that time instead of at the end of inspection process.
PMOs allow owners to move back into their properties at ‘practical completion’ - emails will be sent
to relevant parties.  Owners can move into properties without the code compliance certificate being
issued at that time.  Commercial works would need CCC before occupation.
Some earthquake repair work has been carried out on work that hasn’t received code compliance;
this is classed as an ‘open building consent’. PMOs need to be aware of this situation.  Provide any
feedback to 
 on this situation.
It was noted that a lot of projects are being stalled at EQC.
 noted that they are concentrating on >$50k jobs.
4.
General Business
Exempt building works guidelines: It was noted that TA guidance documents need to be
consistent.  All TAs need to be present at this forum. PMOs have requested that a coordinated
approach be taken to the guidelines and that they are able to provide comments on the guidelines.
Draft guidelines to be circulated for feedback to be received within 2 weeks.  These guidelines are
for residential work.
Advice for exempt building works is that if you are not sure if the works are exempt please check
with the relevant TA.
Guidance for exempting commercial repairs:
Consent requirements for re-levelling works:  
 to follow up on if you require consent for
relevelling works (guidance document B391, item 2, bullet point 3).  Make sure the outcome is
consistent with all TAs.
To what extent must work comply with the building code when undertaking repairs,
discussing the notion of building back the way something existing previously:  When building
work is undertaken it is completed so it is not worse than what it was before.
Earthquake damaged buildings guidelines:  The Council is prepared to exempt some minor
works ie crack repairs of non-critical elements less than 5mm (some conditions apply, see
guidelines).  If the exemption is not listed under DBH’s guidelines, exemption will need to be applied
for.
5.
Next Meeting
Tuesday 19 June, 3pm, Function Room, 1st floor, Civic Offices, 53 Hereford Street
2 of 3

---

Action List
Item
Date
Top Priorities for resolution
Owner
Individuals
Status
Raised
group
1
21/02/12 
Geotechnical - Lidar / TT info release / Flood zoning (info
TA’s CCC
Partly Resolved - 
 
 presentation on Flood
sharing)
CERA
Management Areas.
Flood management Areas
Additional information to be shared as developments occur.
Variation 48 level requirements in Christchurch.
(potentially in connection with Impact of EQC land repairs)
Discussions are being held at the regulatory working group
meetings. 
 
 can keep this group up to date on those
discussions.
2
21/02/12 
Retaining walls - EQC
Insurers /
Ongoing.
PMO’s
r to circulate the latest SCIRT spreadsheet,
currently 456 retaining walls.
3
21/02/12 
Pilot projects - Combined insurers /PMOs/CERA/EQC etc  PMO’s
Ongoing - PMO’s to continue discussions.
MOU still being circulated for signing by insurers.
4
21/02/12 
Consent triggers (what constitutes a significant repair)
TA’s
TA’s are to produce guidance aligned between TA’s
5
21/02/12 
Consent requirements/intended scope of review for house
TA’s
TA’s are to produce guidance aligned between TA’s
lifting methodologies.
6
21/02/12 
Requirement for repairs to be completed to current code,
TA’s
TA’s are to produce guidance aligned between TA’s
rather than replaced as was or bought up to a % of code
(Insulation, bracing, foundation repairs etc.)
7
21/02/12 
Building 
consent 
exemptions
TA’s
Councils are producing guidance. (Item to remain on this list
r
until guidance issued).
8
21/02/12 
TC3 foundation options - guidelines
DBH
TC3 guidance was issued at the end of April.  Waiting to
hear any inputs or thoughts on the guidance.  Will be
meeting with PMO engineers to discuss the guidelines.
Planning an update of the November guidance document.
TC1 and TC2 famialiarisation workshops held last week,
was set up as a train the trainer sessions for PMOs etc.
Working closely with relevellers.
9
15/5/12
‘Open Building Consents’ - earthquake repair work being
All
All to provide any feedback to 
 
carried out on work that hasn’t received code compliance.
3 of 3

---

Meeting Minutes
Combined PMO and TA Forum
Date
19/6/12
Time
3.00pm
Venue
Civic Offices, 53 Hereford Street
Chair
Minutes
Attendees
- Christchurch City Council
- Christchurch City Council
- CERA
- DBH
- EAG/DBH
- Arrow International
- Beca
- EQR
- Hawkins/IAG
- IAG
- Maxim Projects
r
- MWH Mainzeal
- Selwyn District Council
- Stream
- Vero
- Waimakariri District Council
Apologies
- Christchurch City Council
- Christchurch City Council
- Arrow International
- MWH Mainzeal
- Housing New Zealand
- IAG
1. Discussion
Item
Discussion
1.
Agency Updates
1.1  DBH
 discussed the work currently being done by the DBH including:
·  Work continuing on TC3 foundations.
·  Working with CERA on various issues to promote understanding of technical solutions for
repairing/reconstruction of buildings, temporary accommodation for workers.
·  Working with CCC on technical guidance around TC3 in relation to the Councils’
interpretations, streamlining consents process.
·  DBH has released guidance on building evaluations.
 requested feedback on any specific areas that attendees think DBH should issue
guidance on.
 
 discussed the work EAG is doing including:
·  Developing standard engineering sign-off wordings – draft wordings to be reported back at
the next meeting.
·  Working with PMO geotech engineers on topics of clarification around alternative foundation
solutions and issues around regulatory linkage with that.
·  Working on introducing an architectural group to help brief architects/designers in
addressing questions and working with them to clarify details in foundation questions. 
requested PMOs who have specific architects/designers on their team that EAG can engage
with to email any names to 
Trim 12/484920
1 of 6

---

Item
Discussion
·  Pushing CERA for access into residential red zone for testing on re-levelling as some urgent
research to undertake in this regard.
·  Working on getting an update of the November guidance by early next month.
1.2  CERA 
 
·  EQC land repair – fundamental decisions in relation to obligations/exposures has begun with
the process likely to take until September.
·  The Regulatory Working Group is working on a number of issues around release of the flood
data.  The CERA comms team is looking at how best to roll this out to all parties and more
information should be available in the next few weeks.
·  Information around minimum floor levels to insurers in relation to longevity.
·  Guidance from DBH around application of s.72 to 74 in relation to where hazard notices may
apply relating to flood risk – part of the issue is that s.74 notices may apply and may make
properties uninsurable.
·  Existing use rights and the various scenarios around commencement/duration of existing
use rights.
·  Issue of land and land raising i.e. there are approx. 3000 houses that need resource
consents to fill their land and there are associated costs/land settlement issues around this.
·  Apportionment issue between EQC and insurers is progressing - Lumleys and EQC are
piloting a process in the next few weeks.  It is hoped the pilot will identify any systemic
issues and set up a transparent process to resolve claims.
·  Canterbury geotechnical database – looking at having the aerial photos from pre and post
events including Lidar pre and post-events for 6-7 events.  This should be available shortly
and further information around mapping/live data from Lidar will be forthcoming.  
requested feedback be provided to him on the usefulness of the database and any other
issues.
It was agreed that a further demonstration of the Canterbury Geotechnical Database was not
required.
2.
Previous Actions & Priority Items
Updated below.
3.
PMO Monthly Projections
·  Work programming developments - 
 
 sent through list of projections that was circulated
to everyone - any questions to 
 or 
·  It was noted that projected work volumes are looking similar to 2009 figures i.e. approximately
750-800 per month for new properties – predicted to continue at this level for the next 3 years.  It
was noted that there could be some artificial peaks in this figure due to bulk consents which
don’t flow through.
·  It was noted that labour demand modelling is nearly ready and it is estimated that the predicted
figure of 24,000 tradesmen may be correct.  Commercial projections will be available once
CCDU release information on anchor projects.
·  EQR noted that they are involved with EQC and T&T in relation to the drilling programme.
Drilling is going well but there are concerns around the number of consents that could suddenly
emerge at one time and how this can be managed.  It was recommended that these issues be
brought to the Council’s Review Panel to get pre-approved particularly if they will be used
consistently.
a.  It was noted that the Council has noticed increased activity over the last two weeks including the
volume of consents through Aconex.  The Council is working with other Councils (Hastings,
Wellington) to remotely process consents on behalf of the Council.
2 of 6

---

Item
Discussion
4.
Discussion on TA Protocols for Sub-standard Building Consent Applications (CCC/DBH)
·  Discussion was held on the issue of sub-standard building consents.  The DBH noted that it is
not the Council’s responsibility to fix sub-standard applications and it is encouraging the Council
to make a complaint if they are consistently getting sub-standard applications from the same
applicants.
·  The Council will be taking a more pro-active approach to address this issue and applications will
be vetted before acceptance – any applications identified as sub-standard before acceptance
will be knocked back.  The Council is also looking at an RFI refusal letter for consents i.e. if you
don’t respond to an RFI within xx amount of days then it will be refused.  It will be possible to
reactivate the application but it will go back on a priority list and a fee incurred.  More
information will be circulated when available.
·  It was queried that this could be an issue for more complex repairs.  It was noted that the
Council recognizes this but there will be greater timeframes in conjunction with acceptance
vetting for complex applications.
·  The Council is also encouraging applicants to make use of the pre-application advice service
through Aconex.  The onus is on PMOs to put pressure on designers to ensure quality
applications and to keep up-to-date with constant changes particularly around fire regulations.
5.
Building Consent Exemptions (CCC/DBH)
·  More information is needed from PMOs on this type of work.  A common situation is repair and
replacement i.e. what is the interpretation of complete and substantial, so trying to work out what
these terms mean and give guidance around that.
·  Working on finding out what the common repairs are going to be around the Schedule A
exemption including looking for a standard solution/specific guidance.
·  There are different ways of looking at substantial i.e. piles or performance of building – how do
you explain that.  Preference is to work with PMOs to clarify what these are – it was requested
that PMOs provide any live examples to
so that terms can be worked on.  After further
discussion it was agreed that examples should be provided in a workshop environment. 
to organize a meeting and request PMOs to bring 4-5 examples.
6.
General Business
6.1 Re-levelling
 noted that in an earlier meeting there was discussion around a house in Kaiapoi
that went out of level after being re-levelled – he would like to clarify that this was not correct.
6.2  Common Construction Types
Working with engineers on alternative solutions – once they get a consentable type they can
share around and want everyone to do the same to get traction on solutions they can use.  It
was suggested that these are sent through to CCC to get them pre-approved.
6.3  Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment
It was noted that effective 1 July the government plans established establish the new Ministry of
Business, Innovation and Employment - this will bring together the existing functions of the
Ministry of Science and Innovation, Ministry of Economic Development, Department of Labour
and Department of Building and Housing.
6,4  Flood Related Issues
Any flood related issues be sent to
7.
Next Meeting
Tuesday 17 July, 3.00pm, Function Room, 1st floor, Civic Offices, 53 Hereford Street.
3 of 6

---

Item
Discussion
Discussion was held around whether a longer meeting is required. It was agreed to keep the
meeting length the same for now.
A list of meetings for the remainder of the year to be circulated with the minutes.
4 of 6

---

Action List (Updates in bold)
Item
Date
Top Priorities for resolution
Owner
Individuals
Status
Raised
group
1
21/02/12 
Geotechnical - Lidar / TT info release / Flood zoning (info
TA’s CCC
Partly Resolved - 
 
 presentation on Flood
sharing)
CERA
Management Areas.
Flood management Areas
Additional information to be shared as developments occur.
Variation 48 level requirements in Christchurch.
(potentially in connection with Impact of EQC land repairs)
Discussions are being held at the regulatory working group
meetings. 
 
 can keep this group up to date on those
discussions.
2
21/02/12 
Retaining walls - EQC
Insurers /
Ongoing.
PMO’s
 
 to circulate the latest SCIRT spreadsheet,
currently 456 retaining walls.
An updated schedule was sent out – please confirm if
you still want to receive these?
3
21/02/12 
Pilot projects - Combined insurers /PMOs/CERA/EQC etc  PMO’s
Arrow -
Ongoing - PMO’s to continue discussions.
MOU still being circulated for signing by insurers.
All PMOs have signed who need to sign so significant step
forward.  The issue of geotechnical cost share has been
accepted between all parties so it is getting pretty close to
commissioning these works with one small detail still to be
resolved in relation to claims to settle.  CERA will forward
the report to 
4
21/02/12 
Consent triggers (what constitutes a significant repair)
TA’s
TA’s are to produce guidance aligned between TA’s
Started to make progress but working on coordinated
guidance.
5
21/02/12 
Consent requirements/intended scope of review for house
TA’s
TA’s are to produce guidance aligned between TA’s
lifting methodologies.
Ongoing
6
21/02/12 
Requirement for repairs to be completed to current code,
TA’s
TA’s are to produce guidance aligned between TA’s
rather than replaced as was or bought up to a % of code
Ongoing
(Insulation, bracing, foundation repairs etc.)
7
21/02/12 
Building 
consent 
exemptions
TA’s
Councils are producing guidance. (Item to remain on this list
until guidance issued).
Ongoing
8
21/02/12 
TC3 foundation options - guidelines
DBH
TC3 guidance was issued at the end of April.  Waiting to
hear any inputs or thoughts on the guidance.  Will be
meeting with PMO engineers to discuss the guidelines.
5 of 6

---

Item
Date
Top Priorities for resolution
Owner
Individuals
Status
Raised
group
Planning an update of the November guidance document.
TC1 and TC2 famialiarisation workshops held last week,
was set up as a train the trainer sessions for PMOs etc.
Working closely with relevellers.
Updated info covered in meeting minutes above.
6 of 6

---

Meeting Minutes
Combined PMO and TA Forum
Date
17/7/12
Time
3.00pm
Venue
Civic Offices, 53 Hereford Street
Chair
Minutes
Attendees
- Christchurch City Council
- Christchurch City Council
- EAG/DBH
- Arrow International
- Beca
- Fletcher EQR
- Hawkins/IAG
- IAG
- Maxim Projects
- Maxim Projects
- MAS
- MWH Mainzeal
- Vero
Apologies
- Christchurch City Council
- Christchurch City Council
- CERA
- DBH
- Arrow International
- Beca
- MWH Mainzeal
- Housing New Zealand
- IAG
- Selwyn District Council
- Stream
- Waimakariri District Council
In
- Uretek Ground Engineering
Attendance:
- RElevel
1. Discussion
Item
Discussion
1.
Apologies as above.
2.
Minutes of previous meeting confirmed.
3.
Agency Updates
1.1 DBH
·  Apologies from
EAG
·  TC3 foundation guidance – met with Council last week and looking at setting up a working
group to include two to three PMO engineers to progress this work.
·  CCC taking the lead with Selwyn and Waimakariri District Councils to set up a TC3 review
group including Senior BCOs and CERA engineering.  The main aim is to agree on
principles and solutions to assist with some of the more complex consent applications in
residential TC3.  The review group is also looking at the possibility of PMO input on a
rotational basis.  The group are looking for more examples of TC3 work and requested any
examples be sent to
·  Working with Councils to arrange dates for familiarisation workshops around TC1 and TC2.
Trim 12/538793
1 of 5

---

Item
Discussion
1.2 CERA
·  Apologies from 
1.3  Christchurch City Council (
·  Consent numbers steadily increasing and getting leg work under control.
·  Training being conducted this week for some of the Building Inspectors on processing
Certificates of Acceptance (COA) due to a significant increase in COA numbers.
·  Looking at assigning one officer to a project so there is one point of contact and end-to-end
processing.
·  Still finding a lack of understanding around Temporary Accommodation and Change of Use
situations - a reminder that there are still requirements under the Building Act that need to
be complied with.
·  RFI Acceptance and Refusal Process – the Council will be initiating a process to encourage
designers to be more pro-active in providing correct information with the initial application
and also responding to RFIs in a timely manner.  This process will include vetting
applications before acceptance and sending out notification letters with specific timeframes
to provide information.  There will be a marketing campaign ahead of the process and
further information will be circulated when available.  It was suggested that if PMOs wish to
monitor this process that they set up a generic user in Aconex (which anyone can access)
and request any correspondence is copied to that inbox.  Alternatively when making an
application the PMO may request the Council to copy them in on any correspondence.
4.
Previous Actions & Priority Items
·  Updated below.
5.
PMO Monthly Projections
·  Progressing as planned.
6.
Building Consent Exemptions (CCC/DBH)
·  Meeting held between CCC/DBH and some of the PMOs to discuss scenarios/examples – most
common scenarios are residential work and commercial work deemed complex with too many
variations.   The meeting provided a good understanding of some of the issues but more
examples are needed before further guidance can be issued.   The Council is putting together a
robust case around why the Council does not need to be involved with some issues and looking
for support from DBH.  Next step for 
 and he put something to man team and what
else we can let go and publish some guidance.   Still in discussion on what is exempt and possible
review mechanism Aconex – 
 will try to have a draft for review at the next meeting.
7.
General Business
7.1 Flood Management
It was queried whether a new flood management plan will be released and also contamination
maps. 
to check.
7.2 Retaining Walls
Issues with retaining walls on EQC work – 
 
 to talk to 
 
 to ascertain if
SCIRT impacting the list that the Council already issued.
7.3 Contact List / Database
It was suggested that a contact list or database be created to assist with issues around attached
buildings that have different insurance companies.  It was agreed that PMO contact details be sent
to 
 for compilation and then circulated to PMOs.
8.
Presentation by Uretek Ground Engineering and RElevel
· 
of Uretek and 
 
 of RElevel gave an overview of
their respective companies and some of the projects/work they are doing in relation to re-levelling.
2 of 5

---

Item
Discussion
9.
Next Meeting
Tuesday 21 August 2012 at 3:00pm, Function Room, 1st floor, Civic Offices, 53 Hereford Street.
3 of 5

---

Action List (Updates in bold)
Item
Date
Top Priorities for resolution
Owner
Individuals
Status
Raised
group
1
21/02/12 
Geotechnical - Lidar / TT info release / Flood zoning (info
TA’s CCC
Partly Resolved - 
 
 presentation on Flood
sharing)
CERA
Management Areas.
Flood management Areas
Additional information to be shared as developments occur.
Variation 48 level requirements in Christchurch.
(potentially in connection with Impact of EQC land repairs)
Discussions are being held at the regulatory working group
meetings. 
 
 can keep this group up to date on those
discussions.
Update required on flood management plan and
contamination sites.
Ongoing.
2
21/02/12 
Retaining walls - EQC
Insurers /
 
Ongoing.
PMO’s
 
 to circulate the latest SCIRT spreadsheet,
currently 456 retaining walls.
An updated schedule was sent out – please confirm if you
still want to receive these?
 to follow-up with 
 
 in relation to
SCIRT impacting the list that the Council already issued
3
21/02/12 
Pilot projects - Combined insurers /PMOs/CERA/EQC etc  PMO’s
Arrow 
 
Ongoing - PMO’s to continue discussions.
MOU still being circulated for signing by insurers.
All PMOs have signed who need to sign so significant step
forward.  The issue of geotechnical cost share has been
accepted between all parties so it is getting pretty close to
commissioning these works with one small detail still to be
resolved in relation to claims to settle.  CERA will forward
the report to 
Doc circulated by 
 
 CERA – any feedback to 
Just waiting for geotech with 
 to get underway.   From
consenting we have had discussion with PMOs on
requirements but want to give early advice.   Next step is to
get geotech advice.
4 of 5

---

Item
Date
Top Priorities for resolution
Owner
Individuals
Status
Raised
group
4
21/02/12 
Consent triggers (what constitutes a significant repair)
TA’s
TA’s are to produce guidance aligned between TA’s
Started to make progress but working on coordinated
guidance.
 preparing draft for circulation.
5
21/02/12 
Consent requirements/intended scope of review for house
TA’s
TA’s are to produce guidance aligned between TA’s
lifting methodologies.
Ongoing
6
21/02/12 
Requirement for repairs to be completed to current code,
TA’s
TA’s are to produce guidance aligned between TA’s
rather than replaced as was or bought up to a % of code
r
Ongoing
(Insulation, bracing, foundation repairs etc.)
7
21/02/12 
Building 
consent 
exemptions
TA’s
Councils are producing guidance. (Item to remain on this list
until guidance issued).
Ongoing
8
21/02/12 
TC3 foundation options - guidelines
DBH
TC3 guidance was issued at the end of April.  Waiting to
hear any inputs or thoughts on the guidance.  Will be
meeting with PMO engineers to discuss the guidelines.
Planning an update of the November guidance document.
TC1 and TC2 famialiarisation workshops held last week,
was set up as a train the trainer sessions for PMOs etc.
Working closely with relevellers.
A working group has been set-up and includes some of
the PMO engineers which met with the Council the week
of 9 July 2012.
There will be further familiarisation workshops around
TC1 and TC2 - Councils to propose dates.
9
17/7/12
Contacts database to be created and circulated to PMOs. 
CCC
Draft prepared and circulated with these minutes.
5 of 5

---

Meeting Minutes
Canterbury Consent Operations Working Group
Date
18/9/12
Time
3.00pm
Venue
Civic Offices, 53 Hereford Street
Chair
 
 CERA
Minutes
 
 CCC
Attendees
- CERA
- Christchurch City Council
- Selwyn District Council
- Waimakariri District Council
- Building & Housing Group, MBIE
- Building & Housing Group, MBIE
- MBIE EAG
- Housing New Zealand
- ACS
- Arrow International
- Beca
- DOP
- Fletcher EQR
- Hawkins/IAG
- MAS
- MWH Mainzeal
Issue / Topic
Action
Action
Date
By
Confirmation of
·  Minutes of previous meeting on 21/8/12 confirmed.
Previous Minutes
Matters Arising
PMO Technical Leaders Seminars
· 
 
 gave an update on feedback from PMOs in
relation to the PMO training needs survey – most PMOs prefer
shorter but regular training.
·  First seminars on technical guidance scheduled for 27 and 28
September.
· 
 
 tabled an email sent to PMOs with seminar
Note
details (Attachment 1). 
 suggested that attendees
bring any examples/drawings to the seminars where possible.
1.
Introductions
·  Attendees were requested to introduce themselves.
2. Proposed Revised
· 
 gave an overview of the purpose for the revised terms of
Terms of
reference and structure then opened up the floor for discussion.
Reference and
Structure
·  After some discussion it was agreed that the Relocatable and
Note
un-repaired damaged homes sub-group was not required but
could be added at a later date if required.
·  It was also agreed by all to the Proposed Revised Terms of
Note
Reference and Structure (Attachment 2).
3. Steering Group
·  Discussion was held on membership of sub-groups and PMOs
membership
were asked to nominate representatives for these.
·  It was noted that it is important to have appropriate subject
TRIM Ref: 12/699663

---

Issue / Topic
Action
Action
Date
By
matter experts as part of the sub-groups whom are empowered
to represent the interest of their organisations as well as
champion the issue in their organisation.
Action:   PMOs are requested to email names of their
PMOs
20/9
representatives for sub-groups to 
 by COB Thursday 20
September.
Action:  Once member’s names received, 
 to follow-up
24/9
with PMOs and send out a list of sub-group members early
next week.
4.
Sub-Groups
·  Discussion was held on scope and deliverables, membership
and timetable of the sub-groups.  It was agreed that a reporting
template should be created for use by all sub-groups.
Action:  
 to draft a template and circulate to sub-groups
24/9
once members known.
·  It is expected that once membership is confirmed, sub-groups
will meet next week and then determine frequency of future
meetings.  Sub-groups will then report back to the next monthly
steering group meeting with scope and deliverables.
5.
Proposal for
· 
 
 discussed a proposal for PMOs to work collaboratively
collaboration on
in relation to surveying for floor level benchmarks in order to
Surveying for
share information/costs.
floor level
benchmarks
Action: 
 to circulate a one page proposal to PMOs for
24/9
feedback.
6.
Outstanding
·  There are a number of outstanding deliverables from previous
deliverables
meetings (Attachment 3) and the majority of these will be
amalgamated into the appropriate sub-groups.  The main
purpose of the steering group is to look at these and ensure they
are kept to by sub-groups.
7.
Next Meeting
·  Tuesday, 16 October 2012 at 3:00pm, Function Room, 1st floor,
All
Civic Offices, 53 Hereford Street.
8.
Any Other
8.1  Unknown Fill or Contaminated Sites
Business
· 
 
 queried if information in relation to unknown fill or
contaminated sites is available.  
 advised he is working with
ECan and hoping to get this information onto the Canterbury
Geotech Database as a reference to identify sites for screening
level. 
suggested this item be discussed further at the next
meeting.
Action:  
 to include this item on the next agenda.
18/10
8.2  TC3
· 
 
 commented that he has been involved in
Note
community meetings in relation to TC3 land primarily to alleviate
misconceptions and issues/concerns in relation to TC3 for home
owners   MBIE has produced several explanatory fact sheets
aimed at home owners but these may also be useful to PMOs.
Copies available to take away today or can be downloaded from
the MBIE website (www.mbie.govt.nz).
TRIM Ref: 12/699663

---

Action Items
Meeting
Item
Topic
Action Item
Date Added
Assigned To
Date Due
Status
1.
Steering Group membership
PMOs requested to email names of their representatives for
18/9/12
PMOs
20/9/12
Open
sub-groups to 
 by COB Thursday 20 September.
2.
Steering Group membership
 to follow-up with PMOs once names received and send
18/9/12
 
24/9/12
Open
out the sub-group membership list early next week.
3.
Sub-Groups
 to draft a reporting template and circulate to sub-
18/9/12
 
24/9/12
Open
groups.
4.
Proposal for collaboration on
 
 to circulate a one page proposal to PMOs for
18/9/12
 
24/9/12
Open
Surveying for floor level
feedback.
benchmarks
TRIM Ref: 12/699663

---

Attachment 1
TRIM Ref: 12/699663

---

OUTSTANDING ACTION ITEMS TO BE AMALGAMATED INTO SUB-GROUPS WHERE APPROPRIATE
Item
Date
Top Priorities for resolution
Owner
Individuals
Status
Raised
group
1
21/02/12 
Geotechnical - Lidar / TT info release / Flood zoning (info
TA’s CCC
Level information is available through insurers and public
sharing)
CERA
release expected to be in early to mid-September.
Flood management Areas
 
 – contaminated land.   SCIRT has everything
Variation 48 level requirements in Christchurch.
CCC has got.   Can use 
as a resource but Call Centre
(potentially in connection with Impact of EQC land repairs)
able to field calls – done on an address basis so can quickly
advise.   
 can burn maps on to a disc on request
(email
  GIS to talk to each other
– could possibly export layers and get them on to the
geotech dabase – 
 
 to advise.  ECAN have LLUR
database essential Hail register but it is not complete.
Most of it there and legal going through LIDAR to see
what can be released.  Data is 154GB and may be a
small charge for the hard drive.  Ownership issues still
to be worked out so may be a few weeks yet.
2
21/02/12 
Retaining walls - EQC
Insurers /
 
 received an updated list from SCIRT - 632 retaining
PMO’s
walls in Port Hills and noted that there are a lot with
undecided ownership.  The list is marked confidential so
unable to be distributed, however SCIRT has indicated they
will release to PMOs.  
 
 to follow-up with SCIRT –
 to email 
 contact details.
 meeting with SCIRT this week.   To be referred to
retaining walls sub-group
3
21/02/12 
Pilot projects - Combined insurers /PMOs/CERA/EQC etc  PMO’s
Arrow - 
 
Ongoing - PMO’s to continue discussions.
MOU still being circulated for signing by insurers.
All PMOs have signed who need to sign so significant step
forward.  The issue of geotechnical cost share has been
accepted between all parties so it is getting pretty close to
commissioning these works with one small detail still to be
resolved in relation to claims to settle.  CERA will forward
the report to 
5 of 7

---

Item
Date
Top Priorities for resolution
Owner
Individuals
Status
Raised
group
Doc circulated by 
 
 CERA – any feedback to 
Just waiting for geotech with 
 to get underway.   From
consenting we have had discussion with PMOs on
requirements but want to give early advice.   Next step is to
get geotech advice.
 
 passed around a Halswell site plan and
noted that he has been working with numerous PMOs.  CPT
testing has been completed on site and a borehole rig has
arrived on site and set up.  7 boreholes will be completed
although there is a possibility they may have to go back and
do more to get a good understanding.  Should be completed
within 2-3 weeks followed by laboratory testing and then
reporting.  Targeting 1 October for a report to participating
PMOs.
Borehole testing complete and deliverables target is
12 October for geotech reports.  
to find out date for
release and advise.
4
21/02/12 
Consent triggers (what constitutes a significant repair)
TA’s
 
 
TA’s are to produce guidance aligned between TA’s
 
 
Started to make progress but working on coordinated
guidance.
 preparing draft for circulation – still to be completed
as issues arise.   
 
 assisting.   Request for
definition of underpinning and re-levelling noted.
 – looking at 1A and a tidy up B391. Some
interpretation from building and housing required on
what is substantial. To be referred to Foundation
repair/rebuild thresholds and re-levelling Sub-Group
5
21/02/12 
Consent requirements/intended scope of review for house
TA’s
TA’s are to produce guidance aligned between TA’s
lifting methodologies.
r
 noted that there has been some talk in relation to
running a trial but still need more examples – 
noted he had sent some through to 
  It is
unlikely that there will be “blanket” exemptions and
these will need to be decided on a case by case basis.
To be referred to Exemptions Sub-Group
6 of 7

---

Item
Date
Top Priorities for resolution
Owner
Individuals
Status
Raised
group
6
21/02/12 
Requirement for repairs to be completed to current code,
TA’s
TA’s are to produce guidance aligned between TA’s
rather than replaced as was or bought up to a % of code
r
(Insulation, bracing, foundation repairs etc.)
Agreed this item no longer required but may be
revisited at a later date if required.
7
21/02/12 
Building 
consent 
exemptions
TA’s
Councils are producing guidance. (Item to remain on this list
until guidance issued). To be referred to Exemptions Sub-
Group
7 of 7

---

Meeting Minutes
Canterbury Consent Operations Working Group - Steering Group
Date
16/10/12
Time
3.00pm
Venue
Civic Offices, 53 Hereford Street
Chair
 CERA
Minutes
, CCC
Attendees
- CERA
- Christchurch City Council
- Christchurch City Council
- Selwyn District Council
- Waimakariri District Council
- Building & Housing Group, MBIE
- MBIE EAG
- Arrow International
- Beca
- Fletchers EQR
- Hawkins/IAG
- Lumley
- MWH-Mainzeal
- Stream
- Vero
Issue / Topic / Discussion
1.
Introductions
·  Attendees introduced themselves.
2.
Confirmation of Previous Minutes
·  Minutes of previous meeting on 18 September 2012 confirmed.
3.
Review of restructure – is it working?
·  It was queried whether some sub-groups were needed due to duplication of work currently being
done by MBIE, EAG and/or CCC for some of the sub-groups i.e. TC3 Foundations, Flood Risk,
Floor Levels and Existing Use Rights.
·  It was suggested that some sub-groups could be combined i.e. TC3 Foundation /TC3
Superstructure and Flood Risk / Land Remediation.
4.
Review of Sub-groups Progress
·  Agreed that all sub-groups should consider including training, guidance documents and practical
examples as deliverables.
4.1
Retaining Walls
·  Agreed that the issue/problem definition should be re-defined i.e. the key issue is identification of
ownership (mixed or no ownership or mixed or no funding) followed by funding and design.
·  Noted that suspensory loading on retaining walls and what design standard to build to should also
be considered in the future.
Action:  
 
4.2
Flood Risk, Floor Levels and Existing Use Rights
·  Agreed that the issue/problem definition should be re-defined and that there should be
measurable/clearer deliverables.
·  It was agreed deliverables could be a booklet of case studies, further clarification on outstanding
grey areas, technical guidance where applicable and practical examples.
Action:  
 
TRIM Ref: 12/766789
Page 1 of 4

---

Issue / Topic / Discussion
4.3
TC3 Foundation Design
·  EAG having fortnightly meetings with PMOs so appropriateness of having this sub-group was
considered.
·  Noted that PMOs meet without engineers to have some alignment of thinking from a programme
point of view rather than a technical point of view.
·  Sub-Group to give further consideration to this issue and provide feedback at the next meeting.
Action: 
to include on next month’s agenda for further discussion.
4.4
TC3 Superstructure Design
·  Definition of issue/problem and deliverables agreed.
4.5
Foundations Repair/Rebuild Thresholds and Re-levelling
·  Agreed Issue/Problem definition should be re-defined i.e. “To verify that options are viable and are
an acceptable solution for insurers/ reinsurers” and to be clearer/more measurable.
·  It was suggested that deliverables could include training and also to identify what should be
provided with a building consent.
Action:  
 
4.6
Land Remediation and Dwellings
·  Noted that EQC still to confirm their basis for making payments.
·  Agreed discussion needed with the group co-ordinator to ascertain if this sub-group should
continue without EQC confirmation.
·  Noted that this issue also refers to Port Hills land issues in addition to TC3.
Action: 
 to discuss with 
 
4.7
Exemptions and Waivers
·  Held over for the next meeting.
5.
Unknown Fill or Contaminated Sites
·  Separate meeting to be arranged.
Action: 
 to arrange a separate meeting.
6.
Collaborative survey for benchmarks (Arrow)
·  Held over for the next meeting.
Action: 
 to include on agenda for next meeting.
7.
Any Other Business
·  It was queried whether anyone had access into the universities in relation to engineering expertise.
It was noted that most universities are not strong in relation to experience with residential work but
have the knowledge and skills.
8.
Action List
·  Updated below.
The meeting concluded at 4.30pm.
TRIM Ref: 12/766789
Page 2 of 4

---

Action List
Date
Date
Item
Raised
Description
Owner
Due
Status
1.  18/9/12
Collaborative survey for benchmarks - 
 
24/9/12
16/10/12 - Due to unavailability of some attendees, the
discussed a proposal for PMOs to work collaboratively in
meeting to discuss this issue now scheduled for
relation to surveying for floor level benchmarks in order to
Thursday, 18/10/12.
share information/costs.  
 to circulate a one page
proposal to PMOs for feedback.
2.  
16/10/12 
Retaining Walls - Agreed that the issue/problem definition
20/11/12
NEW
should be re-defined i.e. the key issue is identification of
ownership (mixed or no ownership or mixed or no
funding), followed by funding and design.  
 to discuss
with 
 
3.  
16/10/12 
Flood Risk, Floor Levels and Existing Use Rights - Agreed
20/11/12
NEW
that the issue/problem definition should be re-defined and
that that there is no measurable deliverable.
4.  
16/10/12 
TC3 Foundations – this item to be discussed at the next
20/11/12
NEW
meeting.
5.   16/10/12  Repair 
and 
Re-levelling
20/11/12
NEW
Agreed Issue/Problem definition should be re-defined i.e.
“To verify that options are viable and are an acceptable
solution for insurers/ reinsurers” and to be clearer/more
measurable. It was suggested that deliverables could
include training and also to identify what should be
provided with a building consent.
6.  
16/10/12 
4.6 Land Remediation and Dwellings - Agreed discussion
20/11/12
NEW
needed with the group co-ordinator to ascertain if this sub-
group should continue without EQC confirmation of basis
of payments.
 to discuss with
7.  
16/10/12 
Unknown Fill or Contaminated Sites – separate meeting
20/11/12
NEW
to be arranged.
8.  
16/10/12 
Exemptions & Collaborative Survey for Benchmarks
20/11/12
NEW
(Arrow) – both items held over for next meeting.
TRIM Ref: 12/766789
Page 3 of 4

---

Actions Complete
Date
Date
Item
Raised
Description
Owner
Due
Status
1.  18/9/12
PMOs requested to email names of their representatives
PMOs
20/9/12
16/10/12 Complete – names received.
for sub-groups to
 by COB Thursday 20 September.
2.  18/9/12
 to follow-up with PMOs once names received and
24/9/12
16/10/12  Complete – circulated 5/10/12
send out the sub-group membership list early next week.
3.  18/9/12
 to draft a reporting template and circulate to sub-
24/9/12
16/10/12  Complete – circulated 11/10/12
groups.
TRIM Ref: 12/766789
Page 4 of 4

---

Meeting Minutes
Canterbury Consent Operations Working Group - Steering Group
Date
20/11/12
Time
3.00pm
Venue
Civic Offices, 53 Hereford Street
Chair
 CERA
Minutes
 
 CCC
Attendees
- CERA
- Christchurch City Council
- Selwyn District Council
- Waimakariri District Council
- Building & Housing Group, MBIE
- MBIE EAG
- Arrow International
- Beca
- Hawkins/IAG
- Lumleys
- MWH-Mainzeal
- Stream
- Vero
Apologies
- Christchurch City Council
- Fletchers EQR
Issue / Topic / Discussion
1.
Introductions
·  Attendees introduced themselves.
2.
Confirmation of Previous Minutes
·  Minutes of previous meeting on 16 October 2012 confirmed.
3.
Review of Sub-groups Progress
a.
Schedule 1 Exemptions
·  Sub-group is making good progress.
·  Noted that the Schedule should be amber rather than green (running approx. 1-2 weeks
behind) and that a dependency in relation to TC3 is to be added.
b.
Foundations Repair/Rebuild Thresholds and Re-levelling
Two decisions required by the Steering Group:
1.  Arrow International and Housing NZ are operating a parallel activity – can we clarify the
involvement of this steering group/can our discussions or recommendations be shared with
that joint venture.
·  It was agreed that information could be shared and that any PMOs wishing to view results
from the Arrow/Housing NZ pilot programme should contact 
·  It was also noted that Stream has put in consent for a mechanical foundation system to
level concrete slabs and is keen to share information with PMOs as the job progresses.
Contact 
 for more information or if you wish to view progress – work due to
start next week.
2.  Clarify the intent of the education brief – Our understanding is for it to provide stakeholders
(homeowners etc) with ”piece of mind” that the method being employed is appropriate and
tested. The scope of this education material may require coordination with DHB and specific
operators, as well as the results of the trial re-levelling options.
TRIM Ref: 12/855746
Page 1 of 5

---

Issue / Topic / Discussion
·  It was agreed that the focus for this sub-group should be on collecting case studies and to
hold off on the education brief until results of the above pilot programme are known.
Action:  
c.
Land Remediation and Dwellings
·  This item on hold.
d.
Retaining Walls
A decision required by the Steering Group:
1.  Consider the option of a Walls Repair Coordination Service and a possible umbrella
organisation. The group believes that CERA may be the appropriate umbrella organisation.
·  The viability of a coordination service under CERA was discussed but not considered
viable.
·  It was agreed that a central database be considered to identify ownership and that the
sub-group produce a scope (including a firm definition of what it will look like and what
data is required) for review by the steering group.
Action:  
 
e.
Flood Risk, Floor Levels and Existing Use Rights
Two decisions required by the Steering Group:
1.  (26/10/12) For the steering group to review the draft Food Risk, Floor Levels & Existing Use
Rights guidance document as well as the subgroups suggestions of things needed to be
added. Then to tell the subgroup if they are on the right track or re-direct the subgroup.
·  It was agreed that the sub-group to continue on and that the group produce flow charts
and a foundation repair decision tree (if building consent needed) for eventual release to
builders.  Also noted that the foundation repair decision tree is dependent on the
exemption decision tree.
· 
 to speak to 
 re percentages in relation to when a building consent is required.
Action:  
 / 
 
2.  (16/11/12) The subgroup is to discuss the Draft Determination 2505
·  It was noted that the draft determination attachment was not submitted with the report and
also that the information from the applicant was incomplete; therefore, the determination is
subject to change.
f.
TC3 Foundation Design
·  It was noted that the performance expectations had been sent to EAG for discussion and EAG
has reviewed them.
· 
queried if this is a true sub-group or becoming something else with EAG/CCC/CERA
holding similar fortnightly meetings in relation to the same issue, and where the steering group
sees this sub-group going.  It was agreed that this sub-group should focus on new solutions
only but noted that there will be some cross-over in relation to costing elements.
Action:  
g.
TC3 Superstructure Design
·  It was noted that the sub-group is making good progress and coming up with good details.
TRIM Ref: 12/855746
Page 2 of 5

---

Issue / Topic / Discussion
4.
Unknown Fill or Contaminated Sites
·  Discussion was held in relation to PMO accessibility to information held by government agencies
particularly CCC.  PMO preference is to have one central database that they can access.
·  It was agreed that
would discuss this issue further with CCC staff and provide written
instructions to PMOs on how they can access this information.
Action: 
 
5.
Collaborative survey for benchmarks (Arrow)
· 
commented that all sites in FMA or close to boundaries of FMA require a registered floor level
survey to be carried out / signed-off for consent.  Arrow has been conducting their own surveys but
is interested in collaborating with other PMOs to reduce costs and to establish benchmarks.  It was
agreed that
would circulate further information to PMOs for feedback including potential cost
savings.
Action: 
6.
Any Other Business
· None.
7.
Action List
·  Updated below.
The meeting concluded at 4.30pm.
TRIM Ref: 12/855746
Page 3 of 5

---

Steering Group Actions List
Date
Date
Item
Raised
Description
Owner
Due
Status
1.  18/9/12
Collaborative survey for benchmarks - 
18/12/12
Discussed above in item 5.
discussed a proposal for PMOs to work collaboratively in
relation to surveying for floor level benchmarks in order to
share information/costs. 
o circulate a one page
proposal to PMOs for feedback.
2.
20/11/12 
Unknown Fill or Contaminated Sites - Discussion was
 
18/12/12
NEW
held in relation to PMO accessibility to information held by
CCC and ECan - PMO preference is to have one central
database that they can access.  It was agreed that 
would discuss this issue further with CCC staff and
provide written instructions to PMOs on how they can
access this information.
TRIM Ref: 12/855746
Page 4 of 5

---

Steering Group Actions Complete
Date
Date
Item
Raised
Description
Owner
Due
Status
1.  
16/10/12 
Retaining Walls - Agreed that the issue/problem definition
20/11/12
Complete
should be re-defined i.e. the key issue is identification of
ownership (mixed or no ownership or mixed or no
funding), followed by funding and design.  
 to discuss
with 
2.  
16/10/12 
Flood Risk, Floor Levels and Existing Use Rights - Agreed
20/11/12
Complete
that the issue/problem definition should be re-defined and
that that there is no measurable deliverable.
3.  
16/10/12 
TC3 Foundations – this item to be discussed at the next
20/11/12
Complete
meeting.
4.   16/10/12  Repair 
and 
Re-levelling
20/11/12
Complete
Agreed Issue/Problem definition should be re-defined i.e.
“To verify that options are viable and are an acceptable
solution for insurers/ reinsurers” and to be clearer/more
measurable. It was suggested that deliverables could
include training and also to identify what should be
provided with a building consent.
5.  
16/10/12 
4.6 Land Remediation and Dwellings - Agreed discussion
20/11/12
Complete
needed with the group co-ordinator to ascertain if this sub-
group should continue without EQC confirmation of basis
of payments.  
 to discuss with 
6.  
16/10/12 
Unknown Fill or Contaminated Sites – separate meeting
20/11/12
Complete - discussed above.
to be arranged.
7.  
16/10/12 
Exemptions & Collaborative Survey for Benchmarks
20/11/12
Complete
(Arrow) – both items held over for next meeting.
TRIM Ref: 12/855746
Page 5 of 5

---

Meeting Minutes
Canterbury Consent Operations Working Group - Steering Group
Date
18/12/12
Time
3.00pm
Venue
Civic Offices, 53 Hereford Street
Chair
 
 CERA
Minutes
 
 CERA
Attendees
- CERA
- Christchurch City Council
- Christchurch City Council
- Waimakariri District Council
- Ministry of Business Innovation & Employment (MBIE)
- Fletchers EQR
- Arrow International
- Beca
- MWH-Mainzeal
- Stream
- Vero
Apologies
 
- Lumleys
Issue / Topic / Discussion
1.
Introductions
·  Attendees introduced themselves.
2.
Confirmation of Previous Minutes
·  Minutes of previous meeting on 20 November 2012 confirmed.
3.
Review of Sub-groups Progress
a.
Schedule 1 Exemptions
· 
 
 (MBIE) outlined progress to date. Schedule 1 (k) draft guidance on what an
application should include has been developed and provided to the three councils.  The three
councils in Canterbury (Christchurch, Waimakariri and Selwyn) have agreed in principle on the
process for Schedule 1(k) (discretionary) exemptions.  This will be confirmed once the draft
process has been reviewed and agreed.  It is intended that the process describe what
documentation requirements and justification could be included by a PMO when applying to a
Council for a discretionary exemption.
·  Due to competing workloads, mainly to Ministry staff, the Sub-Group work is running late by
approximately 3-4 weeks and due to the Xmas break absences the guidance is unlikely to be
completed until February 2013.
·  Steering Group endorsed progress being made and sought copies of the draft material
currently with Councils for review and input.
Action: 
 
 to supply the Steering Group Chair with draft copy of exemption
guidance material developed to date for distribution to Steering Group members.
b.
Foundations Repair/Rebuild Thresholds and Re-levelling
·  RH and AB each outlined their current respective activity on re-levelling.
·  Steering group agreed that next step is for the sub-group to be placed on hold until results of
consenting processes for pilots are completed, and then to re-assemble to assess outcomes.
·  Note decision to merge this sub-group with the TC3 foundation sub-group (see item f below).
Action:  
 
c.
Land Remediation and Dwellings
·  This item on hold.
TRIM Ref: 13/016507
Page 1 of 5

---

Issue / Topic / Discussion
d.
Retaining Walls
·  The Steering Group agreed that a clearer case for database needs to be established. More
work required on problem definition, what this may look like and how it would be run.
 
 from Vero confirmed that they had not committed to this initiative at this
stage.
Action: 
 
 to write up what is required from the sub-group that could be
presented to Insurers clearly stating the problem definition, its size and possible
cost and time implications in the rebuild. The proposed solution, its costs and
benefits and implications for PMOs and Insurers. The who, what, where and how
business case appears to still be required for the need for a database of retaining
wall owners, in order to get Insurer commitment and buy in.
e.
Flood Risk, Floor Levels and Existing Use Rights
·  The Steering Group agreed that document development will have no status, but simply an
output from the PMO Sub-Group.
·  The Steering Group discussed benefit of some training in how to access, interpret and apply
flood management info, floor level requirements, existing use rights, height in relation to
boundary/daylight access plane and other applicable planning issues.
· 
 
 (MBIE) offered to support CCC in developing and hosting such training
sessions.
Action:  
 
1.  Sub-group members to develop and host training workshops for all PMOs, Insurer reps
and their design contractors on how to access, interpret and apply CCC published /
held info on flood risk, floor levels and district plan existing use rights etc.
2.  Guidance for the Building Industry on Flood Risk, Floor Levels & Existing
Use Rights guide to be finalised and published informally within PMOs as
a useful working guide.
f.
TC3 Foundation Design
·  The Steering Group agreed that this Sub-Group should merge/consolidate  with the
Foundation and Re-levelling Sub-Group given the work that’s been undertaken to date by EAG
and others, and continues on several fronts, on TC3 foundation design.
·  Noted that the current status info is missing from 14/12/12 report.
Action:  
 
 - sub-group members to confirm that this is appropriate?
g.
TC3 Superstructure Design
·  The Steering Group is a little underwhelmed by sub-group progress and the sub-group needs
to determine if greater effort required to achieve outcomes sought for group.   The Steering
Group believes initial objective and deliverables of this sub-group are still valid i.e.: ‘produce
pre-agreed details and principles of design for key superstructure elements’, but much
stronger engagement and effort from the sub-group is required to progress this.   The Steering
Group questioned whether a new sub-group co-ordinator was needed given 
 
other busy commitments.
·  This sub-group is for the PMOs to extract what they need, and hence needs to be driven by
the PMOs if they see the need.
·  The sub-group needs to finalise product and to do this needs a stronger commitment.
Action:  
 
1.  PMO representatives on this sub-group to each considers their commitment to the
process and afford the necessary time and effort to progress things.
TRIM Ref: 13/016507
Page 2 of 5

---

Issue / Topic / Discussion
2.
Sub-Group to consider if a new Chair is required who is able to dedicate more time to
this sub-group.   The Steering Group questioned whether Ian Wells might be an
appropriate person given all his work to date on construction detailing.
3.  PMO representatives on this sub-group to consider if merging this sub-group with the
TC3 Foundation Design sub-group would be an appropriate option.
4.
Unknown Fill or Contaminated Sites: Information for PMOs
· 
 
 (CCC) outlined the information that CCC hold. They are prepared to offer a service,
using Aconex as a drop box for an ‘enhanced property file’ report.  CCC is able to provide info via
Aconex or on disc.
·  Some discussion held between PMO representatives about exactly what info they need
(e.g. public drain locations, contaminated sites etc) and what mechanism it’s best sourced
thorough, e.g.: enhanced property file search, Project Information Memorandum, Land Information
Memorandum, or some other PMO specific info request via Aconex.
Action:  PMOs to discuss and determine their actual information needs here and what access
mechanism best suits them, and then communicate this directly to CCC.
5.
Collaborative Survey for Benchmarks (Arrow)
·  Given the number of surveys already established which appear adequate and no strong drive from
PMOs to pursue this initiative, it was determined that no further discussion required.
6.
Any Other Business
6.1  Change of Steering Group Chairperson
· 
 
 noted that he is stepping down as Chair of the Consent Operations Working Group
as he has taken on a new role within the Central City Development Unit (CCDU) from January
2013.   The Steering Group happily accepted the nomination of 
 
(Earthquake Recovery Operations Manager at MBIE, formerly the Dept of Building & Housing)
to take over chairmanship.
7.
Next meeting
·
Tuesday, 19 February 2013, CCC Function Room, 53 Hereford Street
The meeting concluded at 4.30pm.
TRIM Ref: 13/016507
Page 3 of 5

---

Steering Group Actions List
Date
Date
Item
Raised
Description
Sub-Group
Owner
Due
Status
1.  
18/12/12 
Supply Steering Group Chair with draft copy of exemption
Schedule 1 Exemptions
19 Feb 2013
NEW
guidance material developed to date for distribution to Steering
Group members.
2.  
18/12/12 
Sub-group to hold in abeyance until consenting pilots results
Foundations Repair/ Rebuild
On review
NEW
returned.
Thresholds and Re-levelling
3.  
18/12/12 
Write up required from Sub-Group that could be presented to
Land Remediation and
19 Feb 2013
NEW
Insurers clearly stating the problem definition, its size and possible
Dwellings
cost and time implications in the rebuild. The proposed solution, its
costs and benefits and implications for PMOs and Insurers. The
who, what, where and how business case appears to still be
required for the need for a database of retaining wall owners, in
order to get Insurer commitment and buy in.
4.  
18/12/12 
Prepare better case for retaining walls database - write up required
Retaining Walls
19 Feb 2013
NEW
from sub-group that could be presented to Insurers clearly stating
the problem definition, its size and possible cost and time
implications in the rebuild. The proposed solution, its costs and
benefits and implications for PMOs and Insurers. The who, what,
where and how business case appears to still be required for the
need for a database of retaining wall owners, in order to get Insurer
commitment and buy in.
5.  
18/12/12 
Sub-group members to develop and host training workshops for all
Flood Risk, Floor Levels and
19 Feb 2013
NEW
PMOs and Insurer reps and their design contractors on how to
Existing Use Rights Sub-Group
access, interpret and apply CCC published / held info on flood risk,
floor levels and district plan existing use rights etc.
6.  
18/12/12 
Guidance for the Building Industry on Flood Risk, Floor Levels &
Flood Risk, Floor Levels and
19 Feb 2013
NEW
Existing Use Rights guide to be finalised and published informally
Existing Use Rights Sub-Group
within PMOs as a useful working guide.
7.  
18/12/12 
Develop /Host training workshops for all PMOs on flood risk
Flood Risk, Floor Levels and
1 March 2013
NEW
guidance.
Existing Use Rights Sub-Group
8.  
18/12/12 
Sub-group members to confirm that they agree its appropriate to
TC3 Foundation Design
19 Feb 2013
NEW
merge this Sub-Group with the Foundation and Re-levelling Sub-
Group
9.  
18/12/12 
PMO representatives on this Sub-Group to each consider their
TC3 Superstructure Design
R
19 Feb 2013
NEW
commitment to the process and afford the necessary time and
Sub-Group
effort to progress things.
TRIM Ref: 13/016507
Page 4 of 5

---

Date
Date
Item
Raised
Description
Sub-Group
Owner
Due
Status
10.   18/12/12 
Sub-Group to consider if a new chair is required who is able to
TC3 Superstructure Design
 
19 Feb 2013
NEW
dedicate more time to this Sub-Group. Steering Group questioned
Sub-Group
whether Ian Wells might be an appropriate person given all his
work to date on construction detailing.
11.   18/12/12 
PMO representatives on this Sub-Group to consider if merging this
TC3 Superstructure Design
 
19 Feb 2013
NEW
Sub-Group with the TC3 Foundation Design Sub-Group would be
Sub-Group
an appropriate option.
12.   18/12/12 
Unknown Fill or Contaminated Sites - PMOs to discuss and
N/A
All PMOs
19 Feb 2013
NEW
determine their actual information needs here including what
access mechanism best suits them, and then communicate this
directly to CCC.
TRIM Ref: 13/016507
Page 5 of 5

---

Meeting Minutes
Canterbury Consent Operations Working Group - Steering Group
Date
18/2/13
Time
3.00pm
Venue
Civic Offices, 53 Hereford Street
Chair
Minutes
 
 CCC
Attendees
- Ministry of Business Innovation & Employment (MBIE)
- MBIE EQ Response Programme
- CERA
- Christchurch City Council
- Waimakariri District Council
- Fletchers EQR
- Arrow International
- Beca
- MWH-Mainzeal
- Stream
- Vero
- Lumleys
Apologies
- EAG
- Hawkins
- Selwyn District Council
- Fletcher EQR
Issue / Topic / Discussion
1.
Introductions
·  Attendees introduced themselves.
2.
Confirmation of Previous Minutes
·  Minutes of previous meeting on 19 December 2012 confirmed.
3.
Review of Sub-groups Progress
a.
Schedule 1 Exemptions
·  Running behind schedule.
·  Guidance has been developed for Schedule 1(a) and circulated to sub-group members and
three Councils.  Examples have been provided to Fletcher EQR and currently awaiting
feedback from Fletcher EQR with a view to developing further guidance.
·  Ian Wells at Fletcher EQR has produced a document containing criteria around Schedule 1(a)
which picks up on documents already published by CCC, MBIE etc.  This booklet provides
awareness of different views/opinions around Schedule 1 but what it hasn’t done, is include
the material the sub-committee has been doing.   Clarification is sought if that info is public
and can be included.
·  Schedule 1(k) draft guidance was provided to the three Councils and agreed in principle.  This
has now been confirmed and agreed by Waimakariri 
 
 and Selwyn District Council
 
 but still awaiting agreement from CCC 
·  It was queried how much work outside of Fletcher EQR is likely to be exempt.   Consensus
was that some work i.e. garages likely to be impacted.  It was generally agreed that PMOs are
working in a risk averse environment which is impacting on the sector because of
homeowners’ requiring a level of comfort due to a lack of trust within the industry.
·  It was queried if homeowners have enough knowledge to decide if they need consent.   It was
noted that some insurers are requesting that the owner pay all associated consenting fees if
the work is considered non-consented but the owner insists that consent be obtained.
TRIM Ref: 13/110993
Page 1 of 6

---

Issue / Topic / Discussion
b.
Foundations Repair/Rebuild Thresholds and Re-levelling
·  This item on hold.
c.
Land Remediation and Dwellings
·  This item on hold.
d.
Retaining Walls
·  PMOs would like to know status of claims and whether EQC has paid out or not.
·  Will be going back to EQR around ownership, some insurers cover walls but some don’t.  The
Council has a list of retaining walls but it still comes down to what is covered by the policy as it
affects the build.
·  Still hoping that EQC will give PMOs access to their database.
·  It was queried if the lack of access may be due to an issue with sensitivity.   General
agreement was that it was not.
e.
Flood Risk, Floor Levels and Existing Use Rights
·  It was discussed that if the sub-group members are unable to commit to regular meetings due
to workloads then it was preferable that a replacement be found so that the sub-group can
move forward.
·  Two action items still outstanding.
·  Draft guidance has been developed but Councils / MBIE prefer that PMOs own it as it is not an
official document.  
 commented that he would distribute the MBIE flow chart.
·  It was queried whether it is it possible to define the work required?   It was decided that
guidance would not be appropriate for everyone.   The draft guidance material has been pulled
from various sources but is now contained in one document and has been circulated to sub-
group members.  It still comes down to property specific information.
·  Advice by CCC is that flooding decisions depend on the type of PMO project i.e. what type of
building, size of building, is the building being lifted, etc
·  Some issues with hazard notice as there is a big difference between major and minor repairs
when you read sections 71 to 72 of the Building Act.  It was noted that even if it is a brand new
house and there is a hazard on the land they will get a section 73 notice but there are some
parameters around this.
·  A lot of properties in flood management area are now red zoned.
·  If it’s a re-level , it is not subject to a hazard notice.
·  Where replacing the floor up to 50% or over that or a new house, this is a trigger to finding out
what the floor levels are.  It was queried if there is a way to work this out?  PMOs may send
requests to
with calculations and he will send to CCC flood modellers.
·  It was agreed that although all information is contained in the guidance documentation, face-
to-face explanations are required preferably in a workshop type environment using examples.
Malcolm would like to move ahead with this training.
· 
 
 Lumleys noted that he would like to join this sub-group.
 
Action: 
 to invite 
 to future sub-group meetings.
 to circulate MBIE flow chart.
f.
TC3 Foundation Design
·  No report to hand out due to systems being down.
·  Noted that new foundation option with re-level slab well on the way and first slab carried out
last Friday.
·  It was discussed that there is some cross-over work that could be done with other sub-groups
i.e. TC3 Superstructure and Foundation Repair and Re-levelling although some specific work
still required on TC3 Foundations.
· 
noted that Arrow is involved in the HNZ repair programme and at the stage where tested
15 properties and come up with repair options for all of these and hope to get proven in the
next few weeks. 
will share the results with the steering group.
g.
TC3 Superstructure Design
· 
 
 noted that he has taken over chairing this sub-group in place of 
 
TRIM Ref: 13/110993
Page 2 of 6

---

Issue / Topic / Discussion
·  Initially involved with TC3 Foundations and how they related to TC3 Superstructure and came
up with a few ideas and some issues i.e. what sort of details do they need to generate. These
can be broken down into new and existing foundations i.e. new foundation (fire wall part
boundary) and existing.  Quite a few details developed for existing foundations but there is a
problem when dealing with base of cladding.
·  Also looking at how to develop a fire proof wall on a boundary and also possibility of internal
fire walls i.e. in apartments.
·  Starting to think about foundation situations i.e. garages, porches and verandas which could
raise some issues.
·  A lot of information available already on chimney rebuilds for new foundations but now starting
to relate these to situations where existing foundation damage is not particularly bad.
·  It was queried if it is worth approaching architects and designers to see if they had similar
situations/experiences and it was agreed this would be useful.
 
Action: 
 to engage with design sector to see what their experiences /needs are.
4.
MBIE EAG Advisory Updates
· 
 
 was unable to attend the meeting but provided the written update below.
- 
Supporting MBIE with the release of the updated Guidance document (250 attended the
11 February launch).
- 
Held Engineering training seminars on 12 & 13 February (160 in attendance).
- 
Supporting MBIE Sector Education in planning further training for PMOs and designers.
- 
Working with MBIE and BCAs to develop information sheet and worked examples covering
RBW Certificates of Design Work, Producer Statements and engineering sign-off.
- 
Assisting CCC with their Engineering Services Review.
- 
Liaising with EQC and ECan on forthcoming technical reports and work in relation to land and
ground water.
- 
Looking to provide advice on geotechnical issues associated with light commercial and
industrial buildings.
5.
MBIE Canterbury Residential Rebuild Sector Education Update
· 
 noted MBIE’s focus on sector education which was recently involved in providing training
around repairs to BCAs/PMOs.
·  Sector Education proposes to hold training workshops (2-3 hours every 6-8 weeks) for BCAs and
PMOs.  They are looking for ideas / hot topics in relation to what could be presented and trained
i.e. repair issues, rebuild issues.
·  It was suggested that designers / architects would benefit from training in order to ensure they
understand guidance particularly in relation to foundation solutions.  It was noted that advice
should be simplified.  It was agreed that the guidance document is not necessarily applicable to all
insurers but noted that for consents to be processed quicker then the guidance should be
used/adapted.
6.
PMO’s Engineers and Insurance Companies Requiring Council Sign-off of non-consented work
·  It was noted that CCC is getting numerous requests from PMOs requesting written confirmation of
non-consented work which is causing a strain on resources.  CCC is always available to assist in
providing building advice but cannot provide a specific service to determine if works require
consent or are exempt.  Guidance is available to PMOs to make these decisions but it appears
that insurance companies are requesting written confirmation.
·  It was queried whether the Council has the capacity to provide a Building Consent Officer to
accompany PMOs on sited visits (approx. 2-3 generic sites) in order to provide advice with the
expectation that this time be charged for.  
 noted the current shortage of staff within the
building consents department but would put the request to the Unit Manager.   
 
noted that MBIE can also assist with specific training for project managers.
· 
 also commented that there are some issues in relation to registered capital surveyors
certificates as only a licensed registered surveyor can make an adjustment to LIMs.  
 met
with a representative of the building surveyor’s institute recently who had a lot of questions.
 queried if it was worth forming a sub-group to work out requirements (building locations
certificates).  The Building Surveyor’s Institute would be interested in forming part of the sub-
group.
TRIM Ref: 13/110993
Page 3 of 6

---

Issue / Topic / Discussion
Action: 
 to discuss possibility of BCOs assisting PMOs on site visits in relation to
non-consented works.
7.
Any Other Business
· No items.
8.
Next meeting
·
3pm, Tuesday, 19 March 2013, CCC Function Room, 53 Hereford Street
The meeting concluded at 4.45pm.
TRIM Ref: 13/110993
Page 4 of 6

---

Steering Group Actions List
Date
Date
Item
Raised
Description
Sub-Group
Owner
Due
Status
1.  
18/12/12 
Supply Steering Group Chair with draft copy of exemption
Schedule 1 Exemptions
19 Feb
19/2/13 Distributed
guidance material developed to date for distribution to Steering
2013
at today’s meeting.
Group members.
2.  
18/12/12 
Sub-group to hold in abeyance until consenting pilots results
Foundations Repair/ Rebuild
On
Sub-group on hold
returned.
Thresholds and Re-levelling
review
3.  
18/12/12 
Write up required from Sub-Group that could be presented to
Land Remediation and
19 Feb
19/2/13 ??
Insurers clearly stating the problem definition, its size and possible
Dwellings
2013
cost and time implications in the rebuild. The proposed solution, its
costs and benefits and implications for PMOs and Insurers. The
who, what, where and how business case appears to still be
required for the need for a database of retaining wall owners, in
order to get Insurer commitment and buy in.
4.  
18/12/12 
Prepare better case for retaining walls database - write up required
Retaining Walls
19 Feb
19/2/13 ??
from sub-group that could be presented to Insurers clearly stating
2013
the problem definition, its size and possible cost and time
implications in the rebuild. The proposed solution, its costs and
benefits and implications for PMOs and Insurers. The who, what,
where and how business case appears to still be required for the
need for a database of retaining wall owners, in order to get Insurer
commitment and buy in.
5.  
18/12/12 
Sub-group members to develop and host training workshops for all
Flood Risk, Floor Levels and
19 Feb
19/2/13 Still to do
PMOs and Insurer reps and their design contractors on how to
Existing Use Rights Sub-Group
2013
access, interpret and apply CCC published / held info on flood risk,
floor levels and district plan existing use rights etc.
6.  
18/12/12 
Guidance for the Building Industry on Flood Risk, Floor Levels &
Flood Risk, Floor Levels and
19 Feb
19/2/12 Still to do.
Existing Use Rights guide to be finalised and published informally
Existing Use Rights Sub-Group
2013
within PMOs as a useful working guide.
7.  
18/12/12 
Develop /Host training workshops for all PMOs on flood risk
Flood Risk, Floor Levels and
1 March
19/2/12 Still to do.
guidance.
Existing Use Rights Sub-Group
2013
8.  
18/12/12 
Sub-group members to confirm that they agree its appropriate to
TC3 Foundation Design
19 Feb
19/2/13 Sub-
merge this Sub-Group with the Foundation and Re-levelling Sub-
2013
groups still to
Group
discuss.
9.  
18/12/12 
PMO representatives on this Sub-Group to each consider their
TC3 Superstructure Design
19 Feb
NEW
commitment to the process and afford the necessary time and
Sub-Group
2013
effort to progress things.
TRIM Ref: 13/110993
Page 5 of 6

---

Date
Date
Item
Raised
Description
Sub-Group
Owner
Due
Status
10.   18/12/12 
PMO representatives on this Sub-Group to consider if merging this
TC3 Superstructure Design
 
19 Feb
19/2/13 Sub-
Sub-Group with the TC3 Foundation Design Sub-Group would be
Sub-Group
2013
groups still to
an appropriate option.
discuss.
11.   18/12/12 
Unknown Fill or Contaminated Sites - PMOs to discuss and
N/A
All PMOs
19 Feb
19/2/13 Some
determine their actual information needs here including what
2013
PMOs have been
access mechanism best suits them, and then communicate this
in touch with CCC.
directly to CCC.
12.  19/2/13
Engagement with design sector to see what their experiences/
TC3 Superstructure Design
 
 NEW
needs are.
Sub-Group
13.  19/2/13
Invite 
 
 to future sub-group meetings.
Flood Risk, Floor Levels and
 
19/3/13 NEW
Existing Use Rights Sub-Group
14.  19/2/13
MBIE Flow chart to be circulated to PMOs
Flood Risk, Floor Levels and
 
19/3/13 NEW
Existing Use Rights Sub-Group
15.  19/2/13
Discuss availability of BCOs assisting PMOs on site visits in
N/A
 
19/3/12 NEW
relation to non-consented works.
Actions Closed This Meeting
Date
Date
Item
Raised
Description
Sub-Group
Owner
Due
Status
1.  
18/12/12 
Sub-Group to consider if a new chair is required who is able to
TC3 Superstructure Design
 
19 Feb
19/2/13 Complete
dedicate more time to this Sub-Group. Steering Group questioned
Sub-Group
2013
whether Ian Wells might be an appropriate person given all his
work to date on construction detailing.
TRIM Ref: 13/110993
Page 6 of 6

---

Meeting Minutes 
Consent Operations Working Group - Steering Group Meeting 
Date 
19/3/13 
Time  3.00pm 
Venue  Civic Offices, 53 Hereford Street 
Chair 
 
 MBIE 
Minutes 
 
 CCC 
 
Attendees 
- Ministry of Business Innovation & Employment (MBIE) 
- Ministry of Business Innovation & Employment (MBIE) 
- CERA 
- Christchurch City Council 
- Waimakariri District Council 
- Fletchers EQR 
- Arrow International 
- Beca 
- MWH Recovery 
- Stream 
- Vero 
 
Apologies 
- EAG 
- MBIE 
- Selwyn District Council 
- Fletcher EQR 
- Fletcher EQR 
- Lumleys 
 
 
Issue / Topic / Discussion 
1. 
Introductions  
•  Attendees introduced themselves. 
 
2. 
Confirmation of Previous Minutes 
•  Minutes of previous meeting on 19 February 2013 confirmed. 
 
3.  
Sub-groups progress presentations/reports 
 
1.  Exempt building work Sub-Group 
• 
 
 (MBIE) met with the sub-group last week to discuss progress made to date. 
Fletcher EQR has been applying the draft guidance provided to them. There is also a 
determination applied for by Fletcher EQR which will comment on whether the work should be 
exempt or not. This Determination will also establish if the proposed foundation repair strategy 
complies with the building code.  Specific situation involves repairing/replacing the foundations on 
one side of a house and re-levelling of piles on a TC2 classified property.   
•  Fletcher EQR has used the Schedule 1 guidance.  Note there is no dispute with either the 
consenting authority or the home owner; they are just testing the case.  It will provide published 
clarification around this matter. 
• 
 
 (Fletcher EQR) presented a copy of Fletcher EQRs technical manual on exempt 
building work, a guide for EQR staff and contractors, available in each Hub.   
• 
 
 mentioned that CCC has reported getting an increasing number of enquiries 
from PMOs and home owners seeking advice about whether certain building work was exempt or 
not. 
 
 (MBIE) wondered if CCC had a list of these enquiries showing where they 
came from and if they were predominantly Fletcher EQR or another PMO.  
 
(CCC) wasn’t sure, but will check and let the group know.  
• 
 
 (Fletcher EQR) asked that CCC refer these enquiries back to Fletcher EQR where 
they relate to their work, so they can check on them to determine if consents were needed or not. 
 said they could contact him when this occurs. 
• 
 
 (MBIE) to arrange a meeting with 
 
 (CCC) to discuss Schedule 1 K 
TRIM Ref: 13/110993 
 
Page 1 of 8 

---

Issue / Topic / Discussion 
guidance / policy – which is still to be developed - and obtain examples of the documentation.   
•  Another aspect of blanket exemptions was discussed at the last meeting and there may be some 
agreement between the 3 Canterbury building consent authorities, to potentially exempt insulation 
installation from needing a building consent.  
 
 (MBIE) will be following up on this 
matter shortly.  
 
 (CCC) to forward an email he has regarding this matter, of an 
exemption already given, to Peter. 
• 
 
 (Fletcher EQR) noted that insulation being installed by Fletcher EQR is just to 
replace existing insulation damaged during the earthquake.  Any extra insulation is done by an 
external and independent contractor, engaged by the home owner, but in coordination with the 
Fletcher EQR repairs and in line with EECA guidelines.  Fletcher EQR require the installation of 
insulation be done under the EECA programme by a trained and qualified professional.  The main 
driver for this is health and safety especially given the presence of old electrical wiring in many 
houses, and of course energy efficiency when installed correctly. 
• 
 
 (MBIE) mentioned that Building Bill No. 4 had had its second reading in parliament 
and is likely to be passed this calendar year. It contains some new exemptions for building work 
not requiring a building consent.  
• 
 
 (MBIE) asked if there were any implications or new exemptions relevant to the 
Canterbury rebuild. Peter explained much of it was a restructuring job, removing of some 
duplication caused by successive amendments over the years and some new exemptions based 
on the competence of who is carrying out the building work, e.g. professional engineers, 
registered drain layers and plumbers etc. The term ‘damaged’ has also been removed from the 
section Demolition of a damaged building so that you can now demolish a greater scale of work 
without the building(s) being damaged. Finally there are some minor clarifications and changes.   
• 
 has asked that he be contacted if CCC receives what looks like a disagreement around 
exemptions involving Fletcher EQR projects, so that he can pass the details onto their technical 
hub.  He is worried that Fletcher EQR may have been missed in the process and so are unaware 
of these issues. 
 
2.  Retaining walls Sub-Group  
•  The Sub-Group reported that the deliverable continues to evolve in terms of what the end product 
needs to look like.  At the Feb 20 meeting it was resolved that information could be shared without 
the need to pool data if insurers, PMO’s and the city council were willing to co-operate.  It was 
considered possible and appropriate to share wall ownership information on a case by case basis 
without breaching commercial sensitivity thresholds and this could be done simply by means of a 
broadcast email to all the PMO’s asking for the insurers of a particular property to identify their 
ownership/claim status over a particular retaining wall.  It was proposed that the PMO 
representatives should confirm acceptability of this by the respective insurers and evidence from 
the March 13 meeting indicated that progress was being made through efforts from within the 
group to communicate and co-operate (refer attached minutes). 
•  It was suggested that a letter could be sent to the CEO of each insurance company outlining the 
challenges and problems retaining walls are posing for PMOs and asking for their help in agreeing 
that customers can come to them and ask if they insure retaining walls or not?  It would be 
beneficial to have a point of contact for each insurer so that customers know who to contact if they 
need to find out who their neighbour’s retaining wall (that might cross into their property or affect 
their properties repair work) is insured through.  One source in each insurance organisation was 
needed.      
•  Request was made for either CERA and or MBIE to engage and communicate with insurers 
seeking their support and understanding that there is a need to work together across insurers and 
share information about ownership, claim coverage and status in relation to retaining walls if the 
rebuild was to maintain some momentum as retaining walls are proving to be a challenging issue 
at present.    
 
Outstanding Actions 
•  Prepare better case for retaining walls database - write up required from sub-group that 
could be presented to Insurers clearly stating the problem definition, its size and possible 
cost and time implications in the rebuild. The proposed solution, its costs and benefits and 
implications for PMOs and Insurers. The who, what, where and how business case appears 
to still be required for the need for a database of retaining wall owners, in order to get 
Insurer commitment and buy in. 
TRIM Ref: 13/110993 
 
Page 2 of 8 

---

Issue / Topic / Discussion 
 
New Actions  
• 
 
 (MBIE) to talk to 
 
 (Arrow) and 
 
 (EQR) to 
fully understand the issues and progress the request for an insurer communication from 
either CERA and or MBIE.  
 
•  PMOs to engage with their insurers to seek and obtain confirmation that they are 
comfortable and supportive of them sharing retaining wall ownership and claim status 
information between PMOs in order to help facilitate a more efficient retaining wall repair or 
rebuild. 
 
•  MBIE 
 
 to discuss with CERA the possibility of jointly communicating 
with insurers to raise the profile of and help them understand the complexity of issues 
surrounding retaining wall repairs/rebuilds, particularly those crossing boundaries and 
ownership, and seek insurers support for the appropriate sharing of information amongst 
PMOs to help expedite repair projects. 
 
3.  Flood risk, floor levels and existing use rights 
•  At a meeting on 1 March the Sub-Group concluded that 
 
 
 
 
 
 and 
 
 would run a series of workshops on the guidance, they still need to 
decide on the number of workshops, content etc.  
 noted that 3 hours for the training would 
be to long and that 2 sessions of 1.5 hours each would be better in a larger group, with a 
discussion at the end.  The training will be targeted at PMO site and project managers, taking a 
train the trainers approach.  Refer PMO training overview table attached. 
•  The draft guidance document developed by 
 
 (CCC) for the sector on Flood Risk, 
Floor levels & Existing Use Rights is currently being edited by 
 
 (Arrow) so that it’s 
ready for distribution at the proposed workshops.  Andrew would like it to be an interactive 
electronic document with links to other flow charts, documents and guidance.   
• 
 
 (Fletcher EQR) suggested 
 
 would be the best Fletcher EQR 
contact.  Grant is already a member of the group, so 
 is going to talk to him to encourage his 
involvement and participation in this proposed sector training. 
 
Outstanding Actions 
•  Sub-group members to develop and host training workshops for all PMOs and Insurer reps 
and their design contractors on how to access, interpret and apply CCC published / held 
info on flood risk, floor levels and district plan existing use rights etc.   
 
•  Guidance for the Building Industry on Flood Risk, Floor Levels & Existing Use Rights guide 
to be finalised and published informally within PMOs as a useful working guide.  
 
New Action 
•  Develop /Host training workshops for all PMOs on flood risk guidance.  
 
 
(CCC) to arrange a meeting between himself, 
 
 and
to 
discuss this training and decide on format and dates. 
 
4.  TC3 foundations 
•  Progress has been made with the HNZC trials.  Contractors have been selected and pricing is 
being finalised for approval.  Interesting information is expected to be generated from these trials. 
• 
 and 
 had a meeting to discuss the merging of the TC3 foundations and TC3 
Superstructure sub groups.  After comparing notes they discovered both groups were heading in 
the same direction in terms of the groups, research, focuses and desired solutions, particularly 
because the structure sits on top of foundations.  There are also a number of members currently 
sitting on both sub-groups.  
 has noted that more input is needed from the Superstructure sub-
group members and it would be beneficial to get more engineers/architects involved in this. 
Getting feedback from them is proving difficult. 
•  Steering group made the decision to mergeTC3 Foundation Sub-Group and TC3 Superstructure 
Sub-Group.  Moving forward they will be called TC3 Sub-Group and need to work closely with 
MBIE’s engineering advisory group. 
• 
 
 (Arrow) discussed Firths progress in designing another foundation solution which 
TRIM Ref: 13/110993 
 
Page 3 of 8 

---

Issue / Topic / Discussion 
will be heading off to the EAG for review shortly.  Allied Concrete are close to having their re-
levellable slab designed, signed off and out to market 
 
Outstanding Action 
•  Sub-group members to confirm that they agree its appropriate to merge this Sub-Group 
with the Foundation and Re-levelling Sub-Group 
 
New Action  
• 
 to arrange the first meeting of the merged groups 
 
5.  TC3 superstructure 
•  The group has been looking at Type A building piles and foundations and various foundation types 
in the guidance.  They raise interesting architectural challenges as to how we view a building in 
terms or roofs, walls and foundations and in terms of aesthetics and what people expect to see in 
relation to the foundations.  They are trying to come up with solutions that would help resolve the 
issues regarding what people expect to see on a house.  They may use a baton type sub-floor 
system similar to pre-fabricated buildings.  Ian plans to send sketch details out to various 
consultants and designers to ask for their feedback and comments with a view to formulating a 
plan to propose to Council. 
•  The group has produced a schedule listing the topics/areas they are focussing on at the moment 
and the progress they’ve made to date.  Refer attached sheet provided by Ian. 
•  MBIE 
 asked if a local Building Consent Authority member was involved with the group 
regarding code of compliance issues, to help when it comes to consenting requirements.  
 
(CCC) is on the list but didn’t attend the last meeting.  MBIE 
 stressed the importance of 
insuring building code compliance technical expertise was around the table and involved in this 
work. 
 
Outstanding Action 
•  Engagement with design sector to see what their experiences/ needs are.   
 
4. 
Update from the Engineering Advisory Group (EAG) 
•  A third Engineering Training Seminar was held 12 March with MBIE Sector Education (a total of 
210 engineers across all seminars), plus a session with EQR engineers. 
•  Assisting MBIE Sector Education in planning further technical training for PMOs and designers, 
with the next workshop planned for Monday 8 April. 
•  Finalising the guidance and worked examples for engineers covering RBW Certificates of Design 
Work, Producer Statements and engineering sign-off, following consultation with MBIE and BCAs. 
•  Working with IPENZ, ACENZ to finalise an information sheet to be provided by engineers to 
home-owners to clarify expectations and responsibilities. 
 noted that the information is for 
consumers to try and help recalibrate their expectations of what should be required from the 
design sector.  There are no guarantees things won’t fail in the future. 
•  They have undertaken an independent costing exercise for TC3 foundation options for Type 1 and 
Type 2b Surface Structures.  This will be shared with PMOs to compare their experiences.  
•  Participated in the monthly CCC TC3 Foundation Consent Review Group meeting. 
•  Liaising with EQC and ECan on forthcoming technical reports and work in relation to land and 
ground water. 
•  Commencing a process for updating guidance on geotechnical and structural issues associated 
with light commercial and industrial buildings. 
  
5. 
MBIE Canterbury Residential Rebuild Sector Education Update 
•  Two builder booklets have been developed (for above-floor, and below-floor) that provide an easy 
reference to the updated guidance document.  The purpose of these booklets is to help builders 
and others quickly understand the key aspects of the regulatory framework and essentials on 
repairing and rebuilding houses in Canterbury.  Publication is expected in early April, followed by 
distribution via multiple channels. 
•  A new workshop is planned for 8 April 2013 – looking at new build case study scenario/s put 
together by the training team, while the team sources real case studies from PMOs for subsequent 
clinics and/or seminars. 
•  The direction subsequent training sessions take will depend on input from PMOs in terms of repair 
TRIM Ref: 13/110993 
 
Page 4 of 8 

---

Issue / Topic / Discussion 
case studies for clinics/workshops.  The team are looking for people to volunteer repair case 
studies.  If you or anyone in your organisation has a potential case study please contact 
 
 Acting Team Leader, Sector Education on
 
6. 
Any Other Business 
•  MBIE publications distributed - Rebuild with confidence, Lighter cladding and you and Repairing, 
Rebuilding and re-levelling foundations damaged by the Canterbury earthquakes.  The lighter 
claddings and you and Rebuild with confidence have been published to help, amongst other 
things, to encourage people to think about what opportunities exist and what type of houses are 
really right for them now, i.e. should they design and build to suit there current lifestyle rather than 
build back just what they had.  
• 
 (MBIE) noted that there was some concern shown by PMOs over group home 
builders understanding of the technical guidance.  
 mentioned that MBIE and BCAs haven’t 
yet seen a big change in the group home building companies house designs, still a little business 
as usual approach with same old standard designs at times, rather than more resilient simpler 
layout designs and lighter weight claddings.  Discussions explored the drivers for this 
 
(MWH) commented that this might be more customer driver rather than group home builders 
afraid to try something new. 
• 
 (Arrow) mentioned that Southern Response are looking into building a TC3 show 
home to show different options and finishes and the possibilities of new ‘Cantabrian’ home 
building design.  Arrow International is working with Southern Response on this.   
•  CERA are holding a rebuild expo on the 27th and 28th April, which MBIE and others are 
supporting/partnering with.  It will provide an opportunity to disseminate products, information and 
services to consumers along with several seminars series on topical subjects.  Various 
government agencies will be at this event. Further information on this event is available on line at: 
http://canterburyresidentialrebuild.govt.nz/events  if anyone’s interested in their organisation 
having a presence at the expo, please let 
 know and we can pass your interest onto the 
relevant people within CERA.  
 mentioned that the expo will also involve talks/seminars and if 
anyone has any thoughts on topics that would be useful to have covered off please contact him – 
all ideas are welcome. 
•  CERA are hosting another series of breakfast seminars for professional groups (20th, 21st, 26th & 
28th March) with lawyers, bankers, realtors and valuers to discuss EQC land damage settlements 
and other issues.  
•  At the last meeting MBIE had an action point to arrange a meeting with the Canterbury branch of 
the Institute of Surveyors to discuss their issues with surveying challenges in CHCH post quakes.  
 
 met with the surveyors on 
 behalf and has subsequently invited them to 
send through a summary of these issues, including information on how they think the issues will 
affect the rebuild.  We anticipate that this information will be sent through shortly and once we 
have received this we will engage with CCC and others where appropriate to work through the 
issues. 
•  At the last meeting we discuss the possibility of BCOs assisting PMOs on site visits in relation to 
non-consented work.  Discussions have taken place within CCC regarding this and 
 
 
will follow this up. It will remain an outstanding action point.  
 
7. 
Next meeting 
•  3pm, Tuesday, 16 April 2013, CCC Function Room, 53 Hereford Street 
 
 
The meeting concluded at 4.15pm.
TRIM Ref: 13/110993 
 
Page 5 of 8 

---

 
Steering Group Actions List 
Ite
Date 
Date 
m 
Raised 
Description 
Sub-Group 
Owner 
Due 
Status 
1.    18/12/12 
Sub-group to hold in abeyance until consenting pilots results 
Foundations Repair/ Rebuild 
On 
Sub-group on 
returned. 
Thresholds and Re-levelling 
review 
hold 
 
2.    18/12/12 
Sub-group members to develop and host training workshops  Flood Risk, Floor Levels and 
19 Feb 
OUSTANDING 
for all PMOs and Insurer reps and their design contractors 
Existing Use Rights Sub-
2013 
19/2/13 
on how to access, interpret and apply CCC published / held 
Group  
info on flood risk, floor levels and district plan existing use 
 
rights etc.  
 
3.    18/12/12 
Guidance for the Building Industry on Flood Risk, Floor 
Flood Risk, Floor Levels and 
 
19 Feb 
 OUSTANDING 
Levels & Existing Use Rights guide to be finalised and 
Existing Use Rights Sub-
2013 
19/2/13 
published informally within PMOs as a useful working guide.   Group  
 
 
6. 
18/12/12 
Sub-group members to confirm that they agree its 
TC3 Foundation Design  
19 Feb 
OUTSTANDING 
appropriate to merge this Sub-Group with the Foundation 
 
2013 
19/3/13 
and Re-levelling Sub-Group 
 
4.    18/12/12 
Develop /Host training workshops for all PMOs on flood risk 
Flood Risk, Floor Levels and 
1 
 OUSTANDING 
guidance. 
o arrange a meeting between himself, 
Existing Use Rights Sub-
 
March 
19/2/13 
 to discuss this training  Group  
2013 
and decide on format and dates 
 
 
5.    18/12/12 
Unknown Fill or Contaminated Sites - PMOs to discuss and 
N/A 
All PMOs 
19 Feb 
PARTLY 
determine their actual information needs here including what 
2013 
COMPLETED 
access mechanism best suits them, and then communicate 
Some PMOs 
this directly to CCC. 
have been in 
 
touch with CCC. 
6.    19/2/13 
Engagement with design sector to see what their 
TC3 Superstructure Design 
19/3/13 
NEW 
experiences/ needs are.   
Sub-Group  
 
7.    19/2/13 
Discuss availability of BCOs assisting PMOs on site visits in 
N/A 
19/3/13 
NEW 
relation to exempt building works. 
 
 
8.    19/02/13 
PMOs and BCAs to provide training topics for MBIE’s Sector  N/A 
All 
16/4/13 
NEW 
Education & Training team to consider delivering local 
training on.  Cases encountered, ‘head scratchers’ etc. 
 
 
TRIM Ref: 13/110993 
 
Page 6 of 8 

---

 
Ite
Date 
Date 
m 
Raised 
Description 
Sub-Group 
Owner 
Due 
Status 
9.    19/03/13 
 to talk to 
 and 
 to agree on what the 
Retaining Walls 
16/4/13 
NEW 
letter to the CEO of each insurance company needs to 
include and then socialise the draft with CERA, before 
forwarding it onto the insurers. 
 
10.    19/03/13 
PMOs to engage with their insurers to seek and obtain 
Retaining Walls 
16/4/13 
NEW 
confirmation that they are comfortable and supportive of 
them sharing retaining wall ownership and claim status 
information between PMOs in order to help facilitate a more 
efficient retaining wall repair or rebuild. 
 
11.    19/03/13 
MBIE 
 
 to discuss with CERA the 
Retaining Walls 
 
16/4/13 
NEW 
possibility of jointly communicating with insurers to raise the 
profile of and help them understand the complexity of issues 
surrounding retaining wall repairs/rebuilds, particularly those 
crossing boundaries and ownership, and seek insurers 
support for the appropriate sharing of information amongst 
PMOs to help expedite repair projects. 
 
12.    19/03/13 
 
 and 
 
 to arrange the first meeting of the 
TC3 Foundations and 
I
16/4/13 
NEW 
merged groups 
Superstructure Design Sub-
 
Group  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
TRIM Ref: 13/110993 
 
Page 7 of 8 

---

 
 
Actions Closed This Meeting 
 
Ite
Date 
Date 
m 
Raised 
Description 
Sub-Group 
Owner 
Due 
Status 
13.    19/2/13 
Invite 
 
 to future sub-group meetings. 
Flood Risk, Floor Levels and 
19/3/13 
Completed 
Existing Use Rights Sub-
Group  
 
2. 
18/12/12 
Supply Steering Group Chair with draft copy of exemption 
Schedule 1 Exemptions  
 
19 Feb 
COMPLETED 
guidance material developed to date for distribution to 
2013 
Distributed post 
Steering Group members. 
18/12/12. 
 
14.    19/2/13 
MBIE Flow chart to be circulated to PMOs 
Flood Risk, Floor Levels and 
19/3/13 
Competed 
 
Existing Use Rights Sub-
 
Group  
 
 
 
7. 
18/12/12 
PMO representatives on this Sub-Group to consider if 
TC3 Superstructure Design 
19 Feb 
Completed  
merging this Sub-Group with the TC3 Foundation Design 
Sub-Group  
 
2013 
Sub-Group would be an appropriate option.  
 
 
15.    18/12/12 
Prepare better case for retaining walls database - write up 
Retaining Walls 
 
19 Feb 
CANCELED  
required from sub-group that could be presented to Insurers 
2013 
Appears 
clearly stating the problem definition, its size and possible 
unnecessary if 
cost and time implications in the rebuild. The proposed 
PMOs and 
solution, its costs and benefits and implications for PMOs 
Insurers can 
and Insurers. The who, what, where and how business case 
respond to 
appears to still be required for the need for a database of 
individual 
retaining wall owners, in order to get Insurer commitment 
enquiries when 
and buy in. 
needed. 
 
 
TRIM Ref: 13/110993 
 
Page 8 of 8 

---

Meeting Minutes 
Consent Operations Working Group - Steering Group Meeting 
Date 
16/4/13 
Time 
3.00pm 
Venue 
Civic Offices, 53 Hereford Street 
Chair 
 MBIE 
Minutes 
 MBIE 
 
Attendees 
- Ministry of Business Innovation & Employment (MBIE) 
- Ministry of Business Innovation & Employment (MBIE) 
- Ministry of Business Innovation & Employment (MBIE) 
- Ministry of Business Innovation & Employment (MBIE) 
- Christchurch City Council (CCC) 
- Fletcher EQR 
- Fletcher EQR 
- Arrow International 
- Stream 
- Lumleys 
- BRANZ 
 
Apologies 
- EAG 
- Arrow International 
- IAG 
- Waimakariri District Council 
- CERA 
- SDC 
 
Issue / Topic / Discussion 
1. 
Introductions  
•  Attendees introduced themselves. 
 
2. 
Confirmation of Previous Minutes 
•  Minutes of previous meeting on 19 March 2013 confirmed. 
 
3.  
Sub-groups progress presentations/reports 
 
1.  Exempt building work 
• 
 
 (MBIE) briefed the group on Bill No. 4 and tabled a copy. Whilst it doesn’t 
introduce any new exemptions of any relevance to Canterbury’s rebuild, the restructuring and 
reduction of duplication in schedule 1 will help make the legislation and subsequent guidance 
easier to understand and apply.  Copy of Bill No. 4 tabled.  
•  The sub-group has developed and provided guidance to Fletcher EQR regarding Schedule 1a 
and Fletcher EQR have made some alterations to help operationalise it within their 
organisation. 
• 
 
 (Fletcher EQR) said that they had gone through the earlier draft guidance 
issued in December 2012 and used it as the criteria for how they might look at particular types 
of repair and rebuild components.  They found that if you applied certain aspects and criteria 
of the guidance to different situations it didn’t always make sense or comply with other 
sections of the building code and there were some anomalies.  Fletcher EQR have also 
developed some guidance of there own to ensure there is caution in what they are doing.  
They are applying the MBIE decision tree process as a test and are finding areas where it 
doesn’t quite work.   
• 
 
 (Fletcher EQR) discussed how Fletcher EQR had sliced up the issues into 
sensible groupings for their operations e.g. Foundation Repairs, Foundation Replacements, 
Chimney Repairs, Chimney Replacements, etc.  
•  Waimakariri, Selwyn & Christchurch District Councils have agreed to approve blanket 
exemptions for installation of insulation during earthquake repairs.  The agreement applies to 
all batt / blanket insulation products but not injected liquid foam products. A brief guidance 
TRIM Ref: 13/110993 
 
Page 1 of 8 

---

Issue / Topic / Discussion 
document is being developed listing exactly what insulation is exempt and how to install it.  
This is an important and positive step in achieving a level of consistency between the three 
Canterbury Building Consent Authorities and the group is hoping there will be more going 
forward. 
•  The group is working to implement Schedule 1k and so far Waimakariri, Selwyn and 
Christchurch District Councils are happy with the policy that’s been drafted.  Once the policy is 
adopted it will wrap up this particular stream of work for the group and they can look at 
something else.  
 
 (MBIE) asked that on assumption this happens, what it 
will look like as an out product.  
 
 replied by saying at this point the suggestion is 
to still fill out building consent application forms for exemption applications, rather than create 
new forms, but a policy will end up being developed around what requirements are needed 
and the documentation requirements should be a lot simpler. 
• 
 
 (MBIE) briefed the group on Bill No. 4 and tabled a copy. Whilst it doesn’t 
introduce any new exemptions of any relevance to Canterbury’s rebuild, the restructuring and 
reduction of duplication in schedule 1 will help make the legislation and subsequent guidance 
easier to understand and apply.    
 
2.  Retaining walls 
•  The initial purpose of the group was to identify and alert interested parties in relation to 
retaining walls.  They now have a good understanding of the issues and have identified that 
there are problems and issues to address, in particular co-operation and co-ordination 
between key players.  The group is looking at how to share information efficiently and safely, 
so as to help speed up the rebuilds that involve or are affected by the existence of damaged 
retaining walls.  Issues include the need to avoid any breach of commercial sensitivity where 
relevant and perhaps deal with the queries on a case by case basis with PMOs and their 
insurers, possibly through in a broadcast email system to relevant parties, all with the goal of 
helping facilitate the process of rebuilding a shared wall or fixing properties where shared 
ownership of retaining walls impact of the repair or rebuild work.   
•  Some insurers (IAG was given as an example) are happy with this but some aren’t (Southern 
Response was given as an example).   
•  Originally Christchurch City Council said they would allow access to the SCIRT database, so 
that people can better coordinate their repair programme of works, but there now seems to be 
some resistance to this within CCC.  The EQC web portal is also closed at the moment, so a 
lot of the data can’t be accessed which is also causing problems and delays.  Up until this 
point the sub-group was making some head way, but issues with the EQC portal and 
information sharing are causing frustrations.  Key roadblocks like the EQC portal, Insurer 
approval and access to the SCIRT database need to be rectified before the group can move 
forward and better rebuild momentum can be achieved on affected sites.  
• 
 
 (MBIE) apologised for not progressing his action point from last month to 
work with the group to draft communication to Insurers.  
 has secured some extra 
resource to help with this task and will be in contact with the group within the next few days to 
progress this matter.  
       
Outstanding Actions 
  
• 
 
 (MBIE) to talk to 
 
 (Arrow) and 
 
 (EQR) 
to fully understand the issues and progress the request for an insurer communication 
from either CERA and or MBIE.  
 
•  PMOs to engage with their insurers to seek and obtain confirmation that they are 
comfortable and supportive of them sharing retaining wall ownership and claim status 
information between PMOs in order to help facilitate a more efficient retaining wall 
repair or rebuild. 
 
•  MBIE 
 
 to discuss with CERA the possibility of jointly 
communicating with insurers to raise the profile of and help them understand the 
complexity of issues surrounding retaining wall repairs/rebuilds, particularly those 
crossing boundaries and ownership, and seek insurers support for the appropriate 
sharing of information amongst PMOs to help expedite repair projects. 
TRIM Ref: 13/110993 
 
Page 2 of 8 

---

Issue / Topic / Discussion 
 
3.  Flood risk, floor levels and existing use rights 
•  After the last Steering Group meeting a sub-group meeting was held 25 March, hosted by 
 
 (MWH Recovery) and attended 
 
 (CCC), 
 Buckley 
(Arrow International) and 
 
 (Stream Group).  The action points that came out of 
the meeting were for Andrew to update the flood risk guidance document and Russell to draft 
a PowerPoint presentation for the upcoming workshops.  The workshops will be presented to 
PMO technical groups first, then the Designers Association, Master Builders, Certified Builders 
and Institute of Architects.  Group Home Builders will fit into the Master Builders and Certified 
Builders workshops.  The hope is that they will then train their own people and will be given a 
copy of the presentation to use.   
•  A follow up meeting took place on 10 April and the PowerPoint presentation was given to all 
sub-group members for feedback.   
•  Another meeting is scheduled for 17 April and 
 has emailed out the flood risk guidance 
documents to group members for feedback.   
•  One uncompleted action point from the last meeting was to develop and host training 
workshop for PMOS and set up a meeting to be with 
 
 and 
 
 to 
discuss this.  The meeting will be scheduled to take place after the meeting on 17 April.  
will send out a meeting invite. 
•  Changes to draft guidance document – 
 
 described that it is best used 
electronically.  It hasn’t been finalised but on page 33 there is a decision tree on exemptions 
and building consents.  They are hoping to put a series of links on these diagrams which will 
take you to other relevant guidance and information.  There will also be a third flow diagram 
added regarding flood management from a resource point of view.  Existing use rights is a 
very complex subject and it’s quite critical for building in the FMA.  Any future papers 
developed by CCC will also have links added to the diagrams.  A link will be provided to the 
participants of the workshops and will be kept up to date and relevant.   
•  PowerPoint presentation for training workshops – this subject is a starting point for the 
meeting on 17 April for people to provide feedback on what else needs to be added.  The 
group will then work on how best to train the PMOs and then take it into the building sectors.  
The group thinks its going to be a very useful guide that will hopefully take some pressure of 
CCC.  Hopefully there will be a point of contact that the people going to the training can liaise 
with that will also take pressure off CCC. 
• 
 thinks that they possibly need a bit of guidance on how to use the flooding website and 
existing use rights.  Some of the slides are a little busy so may need to be re-formatted.  
These matters will be discussed at the 17 April meeting, which 
 
 is attending.  
Being delivered to technical PMOS first (technical groups within the PMOS), then hopefully 
they can filter this down the line.   
• 
 
 (MBIE) noted that the key points to be covered off at the training are the 
inter-dependencies and competing requirements. 
 
Outstanding Actions 
•  Sub-group members to develop and host training workshops for all PMOs and Insurer 
reps and their design contractors on how to access, interpret and apply CCC published 
/ held info on flood risk, floor levels and district plan existing use rights etc.   
 
•  Guidance for the Building Industry on Flood Risk, Floor Levels & Existing Use Rights 
guide to be finalised and published informally within PMOs as a useful working guide. 
 
4.  TC3 Foundations & Superstructure 
•  A combined meeting of the TC3 Superstructure and TC3 Foundations sub-groups was held 
last week and all members unanimously agreed it should continue to move forward as a 
combined group. 
•  TC3 Foundations  
- 
Most of the new foundations being built are either type 1 or type 2 a or b.  Further 
solutions are being investigated using screw piles and 300mm slab.  
 Buckley 
(Arrow) noted that Firth are looking at re-levelable TC3 slab designs that can 
accommodate  2 storey house options and the results aren’t to far away.  Allied are also 
looking at re-levelable slab options and Arrow International have suggested they contact 
TRIM Ref: 13/110993 
 
Page 3 of 8 

---

Issue / Topic / Discussion 
EAG to get them involved early in their design and testing work.   
- 
Arrow International is undertaking a job at the moment on a site with severe lateral 
spreading and is planning to use screw piles.  They are receiving a huge amount of 
geotechnical and structural engineering input around this job.  This will hopefully produce 
some useful findings as to whether or not using screw piles in areas of severe lateral 
spreading will be a viable solution.   
- 
HNZC are progressing 6 projects to repair TC3 foundations using solutions technically 
outside of MBIE guidelines, all be it hybrid designs, all engineering questions/issues will 
be passed back through EAG.  HNZC are keen to trial new options.  1 house is consented 
and 5 will be going through the exempt building work schedule 1K scheme at CCC shortly.  
Another 8 houses are planned after these 6 (14 in total for HNZC). 
•  TC3 Superstructure 
- 
A number of design ideas have been forwarded to architects and designers of the group 
for comments on the surplus structure foundations and seeking there feedback.  
Gathering feedback has proved some what difficult however they did receive one idea, 
which was a modification of type one, possibly type 2, foundations.  The suggestion 
shifted the bracing to the inside of the piles, not the outside and the outside was clad in a 
panel system which is more akin to the standard foundation system we’re used to.  A 
sketch has been developed and 
 
 (BRANZ) has a copy for review.  Refer 
attached drawings. 
- 
The group are also looking at garage foundations.  Concrete floors against timber floor 
dwellings and the different levels and interaction between the two elements.  Refer 
attached drawings. 
- 
Ian Wells distributed some sketch drawings to the steering group to illustrate the type of 
work the Sub-Group have been working on, these included fire wall details and cladding 
junctions etc.  
•  Apologies from the group for not getting copies of the minutes from their meeting sent through 
in time.  These will follow shortly. 
• 
 
 sent some TC3 Superstructure design solutions out to some of the designers 
Fletcher EQR have on their books seeking their feedback. Very limited feedback as at steering 
group meeting, one response from an Architecture firm.  
 
Outstanding Action 
•  Sub-group members to confirm that they agree its appropriate to merge this Sub-Group 
with the Foundation and Re-levelling Sub-Group 
 
4. 
Multiproof presentation by 
 
 from MBIE 
•  Refer attached presentation slides and Multiproof pamphlet information.   
 
5. 
MBIE Canterbury Residential Rebuild Sector Education Update 
•  The team has been running a sector education programme aimed at increasing understanding 
and application of the technical guidance for the rebuild.  Workshops and seminars have been 
held with building officials, PMOS, architectural designers and engineers.   
•  The shape of PMO training going forward depends on the team receiving new case studies.  
They are very keen to obtain some new repair focussed case studies that are tricky, but where 
the person sending the idea to them feels confident with the solutions and think it would be 
useful for the wider PMO groups to learn about it.  Please contact 
 
 (Senior 
Advisory Sector Education) on (04) 817 4432 or
•  In terms of the case study training, 
 envisages MBIE working together with the person 
who has provided the case study to come up with a concept that can be put into a workbook 
and be used to work through the decision making process.  To date they have created 
scenarios as they haven’t received any real examples which they can get photos and data 
from.  
 
 (Arrow) suggested HNZC could help with that and suggested Kirsty 
contact 
 
 (Arrow). 
•  The Sector Education Group has been receiving valuable input from EAG members.  
•  There will be 2 builder booklets produced shortly, one for above floor and one on foundations.  
They will have references to the guidance and key messages throughout.  These have been 
thoroughly reviewed by numerous people in MBIE, EAG etc.  They are going to be distributed 
through various channels to PMOS and group home builders.  Previous publications reached 
TRIM Ref: 13/110993 
 
Page 4 of 8 

---

Issue / Topic / Discussion 
97% of market and they think these will do the same.  If anyone would like to be added to the 
distribution list please let Kirsty know (contact details above) ASAP as the books will begin to 
be distributed in the next week or so.   
 
5. 
Update from the Engineering Advisory Group (EAG) 
•  The guidance on Repairing and Rebuilding houses affected by the Canterbury Earthquakes 
has been released and various training workshops have been delivered on it to different 
professional groups. EAG continues to monitor and answer any queries received.  They are 
currently preparing an update to the guidance containing FAQs on areas that required further 
explanation and information.  This will be uploaded onto the website within the next few 
weeks.  There will also potentially be a space where some of the Christchurch City Council 
issues and areas they are struggling with can be promoted as well.  This will be ongoing and 
updated as and when needed. 
•  Other guidance material continues to be updated and there are some updated fact and 
guidance sheets on line at: http://www.dbh.govt.nz/canterbury-rebuild-info-sheets as examples 
of ongoing updates.  
•  EAG are working with Highway Stabilisers to get some demonstration projects underway for 
ground improvement options.  Halswell School and a house in Fendalton have been trialled 
and results are being evaluated.  The group are helping to promote the ground improvement 
options. 
•  High court decision on the Laughlan case has raised 2 or 3 issues that mean the Repairing 
and Rebuilding houses affected by the Canterbury Earthquakes  guidance may need to be 
better clarified in places as its would appear it has been misunderstood in the Laughlan case.    
•  EAG are working with HNZC on their house repair programme looking at areas where they are 
working outside of guidance on hybrid and alternative TC3 solutions. 
•  A costing exercise on TC3 foundations is being run in response to the CERA industry 
workshops.  EAG are keen to work with PMOs on the results of these - particularly concerning 
the type 2b options being used - to compare the prices EAG are getting from their 
independent costings. 
•  Ongoing Christchurch City Council and TC3 review meetings. 
•  Guidance on producer statement certificates is being finalised but is being held up as further 
clarification is needed. 
•  Information sheets for homeowners on appropriate expectations to have on engineers in the 
context of earthquake damaged repairs and rebuilds is being developed with input from IPENZ 
and others.    
•  EAG are starting to develop a scope of issues relating to light industrial and commercial 
buildings, which will be important for the rebuild as the central city rebuild area gets underway. 
•  EAG are also supporting some University of Canterbury research to help answer questions on 
design methodologies regarding liquefaction in areas where it didn’t occur during the 
earthquake and also ground shaking and water table measurement issues. 
•  EAG are helping CCC with the internal Engineering Services Review. 
•  Finally, EAG are looking at multi unit buildings – trying to get clarity around issues there.  
 
6. 
Any Other Business 
• 
 
 (CCC) noted that 
 
 asked about fire regulations in TC3.  
 
 wants to put a show home on TC3 land. 
• 
 (MBIE) raised the issue of management of flow rates around consenting 
applications sent to Councils.  This is in relation to the PMO metrics forward forecasting of 
building consent applications to Councils, and a recent media story around significant consent 
volume increases.  There has been a100% jump in the number of applications received by 
Christchurch City Council over last 4 weeks.  The PMO metrics weren’t forecasting this and so 
it has been difficult for the Council to be prepared for the influx.  
 
 asked if it was 
possible for the PMOs to better inform the Councils of the number of applications expected in 
the future, so they can be prepared.  
 
 (Fletcher EQR) said it can be difficult as 
they can only provide a rough estimate due to so many external factors that are out of their 
control.  
 
 noted that Arrow International are currently trying to set up a system 
with their Group Home Builders so that the application is sent back to Arrow to on-send to the 
Council and manage the consenting lodgement process themselves to get better control and 
management of this stage of the process, as opposed to the building companies sending them 
TRIM Ref: 13/110993 
 
Page 5 of 8 

---

Issue / Topic / Discussion 
direct to council.  This way Arrow would be able to better monitor and manage the consent 
volume.   
• 
 
 (CCC) noted that due to the increase in applications received CCC are 
currently engaging with Councils around the country to ask for help with processing these 
applications, however they need to have a better indication of the number expected each 
month so that they can ensure adequate resources are in place externally as well as internally 
to help.   Some sort of arrangement needs to be put in place regarding the flow rate to get 
better certainty before they engage extra resources. External suppliers require assurance of 
work volumes so they can manage their workloads also.  
 
7. 
Next meeting 
•  3pm, Tuesday, 21 May 2013, CCC Function Room, 53 Hereford Street 
 
 
The meeting concluded at 4.45pm.
TRIM Ref: 13/110993 
 
Page 6 of 8 

---

 
Steering Group Actions List 
Ite
Date 
Date 
m 
Raised 
Description 
Sub-Group 
Owner 
Due 
Status 
1.    18/12/12 
Sub-group to hold in abeyance until consenting pilots results 
Foundations Repair/ Rebuild 
On 
Sub-group on 
returned. 
Thresholds and Re-levelling 
review 
hold 
 
2.    18/12/12 
Sub-group members to develop and host training workshops  Flood Risk, Floor Levels and 
 
19/2/13 
STILL 
for all PMOs and Insurer reps and their design contractors 
Existing Use Rights Sub-
OUSTANDING 
on how to access, interpret and apply CCC published / held 
Group  
19/2/13 
info on flood risk, floor levels and district plan existing use 
 
rights etc.  
 
3.    18/12/12 
Guidance for the Building Industry on Flood Risk, Floor 
Flood Risk, Floor Levels and 
19/2/13 
STILL 
Levels & Existing Use Rights guide to be finalised and 
Existing Use Rights Sub-
OUSTANDING 
published informally within PMOs as a useful working guide.   Group  
19/2/12 
 
 
4.    18/12/12 
Sub-group members to confirm that they agree its 
TC3 Foundation Design  
19/2/13 
STILL 
appropriate to merge this Sub-Group with the Foundation 
 
OUTSTANDING 
and Re-levelling Sub-Group 
 
5.    18/12/12 
Develop /Host training workshops for all PMOs on flood risk 
Flood Risk, Floor Levels and 
1/3/13 
STILL 
guidance.   
Existing Use Rights Sub-
OUSTANDING 
Group  
19/2/12 
 
6.    18/12/12 
Unknown Fill or Contaminated Sites - PMOs to discuss and 
N/A 
All PMOs 
19/3/13 
PARTLY 
determine their actual information needs here including what 
COMPLETED 
access mechanism best suits them, and then communicate 
Some PMOs 
this directly to CCC. 
have been in 
 
touch with CCC. 
7.    19/2/13 
Discuss availability of BCOs assisting PMOs on site visits in 
N/A 
19/3/12 
OUTSTANDING 
relation to exempt building works. 
 
8.    19/02/13 
PMOs and BCAs to provide training topics for MBIE’s Sector  All 
All 
19/2/13 
STILL 
Education & Training team to consider delivering local 
OUTSTANDING 
training on.  Cases encountered, ‘head scratchers’ etc. 
 
9.    19/03/13 
 to talk to 
 and 
 to agree on what the 
Retaining Walls 
16/4/13 
OUTSTANDING 
letter to the CEO of each insurance company needs to 
include and then socialise draft with CERA, before 
 
forwarding it onto the insurers. 
10.    19/03/13 
PMOS to engage with their insurers to seek and obtain 
Retaining Walls 
16/4/13 
OUTSTANDING 
confirmation that they are comfortable and supportive of 
TRIM Ref: 13/110993 
 
Page 7 of 8 

---

 
Ite
Date 
Date 
m 
Raised 
Description 
Sub-Group 
Owner 
Due 
Status 
them sharing retaining wall ownership and claim status 
information between PMOS in order to help facilitate a more 
efficient retaining wall repair or rebuild. 
11.    19/03/13 
MBIE 
 
 to discuss with CERA the 
Retaining Walls 
 
 
16/4/13 
OUTSTANDING 
possibility of jointly communicating with insurers to raise The 
profile of and help them understand the complexity of issues 
surrounding retaining wall repairs/rebuilds, particularly those 
crossing boundaries and ownership, and seek insurers 
support for the appropriate sharing of information amongst 
PMOs to help expedite the repair projects. 
 
 
Actions Closed This Meeting 
 
Ite
Date 
Date 
m 
Raised 
Description 
Sub-Group 
Owner 
Due 
Status 
12.    19/3/13 
arrange the first meeting of the 
TC3 Foundations & 
16/4/13 
COMPLETED 
merged groups. 
Superstructure Design Sub
Groups 
13.    19/03/13 
 
 (Arrow International) to update the flood 
Flood Risk, Floor Levels and 
 
 
21/5/13 
COMPLETED 
risk guidance document and 
 
 (MWH 
Existing Use Rights Sub-
16/04/2013 
Recovery) to draft a PowerPoint presentation for the 
Group  
upcoming workshops.  This will be forwarded onto sub-
 
group members for their review and feedback at the next 
meeting schedule to take place 17 April. 
 
14.    19/2/13 
Engagement with design sector to see what their 
TC3 Superstructure Design 
 
 
19/3/13 
COMPLETED 
experiences/ needs are.   
Sub-Group  
16/04/13 
 
 
TRIM Ref: 13/110993 
 
Page 8 of 8 

---

Meeting Minutes 
Consent Operations Working Group - Steering Group Meeting 
Date 
21/5/13 
Time 
3.00pm 
Venue 
Civic Offices, 53 Hereford Street 
Chair 
, MBIE 
Minutes 
, MBIE 
 
Attendees 
- Ministry of Business Innovation & Employment (MBIE) 
 
- Ministry of Business Innovation & Employment (MBIE) 
- Christchurch City Council 
- Fletcher EQR 
- Fletcher EQR 
- Arrow International 
- Beca 
- MWH Recovery 
- Stream 
- Vero 
- Lumley 
- Waimakariri District Council 
- CERA 
- Arrow International 
- Hawkins 
- EAG 
 
 
Apologies 
- IAG 
- Fletcher EQR 
- Hawkins 
- Ministry of Business Innovation & Employment (MBIE) 
- Ministry of Business Innovation & Employment (MBIE) 
 
 
Issue / Topic / Discussion 
1. 
Introductions  
•  Attendees introduced themselves. 
 
2. 
Confirmation of Previous Minutes 
•  Minutes of previous meeting on 16 April 2013 confirmed. 
 
3.  
Sub-groups progress presentations/reports 
 
1.  Exempt building work 
•  Sub- Sub-group has been working to try and test some of the results of the decision tree 
process (refer attached example – repairing of chimneys).  This is a good example of following 
the process through to exemption or consent and the group will continue to work on this 
decision tree process.   
•  Still waiting for the Building Bill No. 4 amendment to be passed.  Once this has been passed 
PMOs, builders etc will feel more confident on what the definitions are around 
complete/substantial repairs/rebuild.  Some comfort would be provided as it will mean they are 
all following the same guidelines.  Section 112 in Schedule 1, under new clause 42a of the 
amendment, is also quite important, as the current section only refers to building consent 
authorities and it would mean that exempt work could be treated the same way.  This will 
provide PMOs with clarity around what if any upgrade to the building is required when repairs 
are being undertaken. 
 
2.  Retaining walls 
• 
 
 has been working with 
 
 (who has been engaged by 
 
 to help cover off the group’s action points about engaging with insurers and or CERA 
TRIM Ref: 13/110993 
 
Page 1 of 8 

---

Issue / Topic / Discussion 
about allowing better information sharing in order to support speedier rebuilds.  
 is helping 
to find an avenue that will allow information sharing between insurers, PMOs etc.  
 noted 
that as time goes by people will get to know who the parties with the retaining walls that have 
issues are, but it’s about speeding this process up.  One of complexities of this issue is the 
privacy act regarding information sharing and status of insurance claims on retaining walls.   
• 
 
 mentioned that he would be engaging with CERA’s insurance team about 
this issue and also noted that The Privacy Commissioner is becoming more flexible with 
information sharing, in the context of Canterbury earthquake recovery initiatives.  They accepted 
the current approach isn’t always working and they are looking at how the sector can be more 
flexible without compromising privacy. 
 
Outstanding Actions 
  
•  PMOs to engage with their insurers to seek and obtain confirmation that they are 
comfortable and supportive of them sharing retaining wall ownership and claim status 
information between PMOs in order to help facilitate a more efficient retaining wall repair 
or rebuild. 
 
 
3.  Flood risk, floor levels and existing use rights 
 
•  Following on from the meeting held on 10 April, 
 
 has completed a draft 
Powerpoint presentation for the planned training workshops on flood risk, floor levels and district 
plan existing use rights etc and 
 
 has completed a draft guidance document on 
flood risks & floor levels.  A meeting was held on 17 April to discuss progress of both and any 
changes that should be made.  
 
 met with 
 
 on 7 May to update the 
Powerpoint presentation to incorporate these changes and they have agreed another meeting 
will be held 28 May to finalise this piece of work.  Slides containing Section 71&73 and MBIE 
flow chart still need to be inserted. 
•  Tidal effect work which also needs to be better covered off and the A discussion was also held 
over who this information should be presented to, e.g. design people and people applying for 
PIMS, so that they understand the trigger points and can design around them.   
•  Timing of the delivery of the seminars will be discussed at the meeting on the 28th.   
 
Outstanding Actions 
•  Sub-group members to develop and host training workshops for all PMOs and Insurer 
reps and their design contractors on how to access, interpret and apply CCC published / 
held info on flood risk, floor levels and district plan existing use rights etc.   
 
•  Guidance for the Building Industry on Flood Risk, Floor Levels & Existing Use Rights 
guide to be finalised and published informally within PMOs as a useful working guide. 
 
•  Develop /Host training workshops for all PMOs on flood risk guidance. 
(CCC) to arrange a meeting between himself, 
 
 and 
to 
discuss this training and decide on format and dates. 
 
 
4.  TC3 Foundations & Superstructure 
 
•  The TC3 foundations and superstructure sub-groups have joined forces and have held a couple 
of meetings since the last steering group meeting.   
• 
 
 previously presented some sketches on superstructure architectural subfloor details 
and the group considered further work needed to be done to these and put some ideas forward.  
These were submitted to everyone for comment and input and a discussion needs to be held 
with EAG and anyone else who has ideas around the 3 superstructure options (1, 2 and 3 - refer 
attachment).  The purpose of this is so the group can work through some of the details and 
come up with guidance/rules that they feel will give the designers direction and uniformity.  Once 
these are settled upon they will be put in a user friendly format. 
•  2a / 2b foundation options and having a 2a / 2b foundation with attached garage were also 
TRIM Ref: 13/110993 
 
Page 2 of 8 

---

Issue / Topic / Discussion 
discussed in the second sub-group meeting held this month.  The group is keen to gather 
information from people on current jobs they may be working on. 
•  The group would like to hold more discussions around 3a / 3b foundations.  Some work is taking 
place with engineers in this space; it’s a work in progress.   
•  An update was given on HNZC’s foundation trial programme, which physically got underway a 
few weeks ago.  There are a couple of properties having work done to them over the next few 
weeks and 13 properties will have repairs, partial replacements and re-levelling work carried out 
on them.   
•  A decision was made at the last sub-group meeting that they will have monthly meetings going 
forward, as opposed to fortnightly meetings.  
 will send minutes of last meeting around to 
the group within the next few days.  The next meeting is scheduled for 12 June. 
•  A discussion was held over regular and irregular shape house designs.  The definition is for the 
major projection to be applied to the 2 long sides.  Firth has created their own definition of 
regular shape and 
 
 (Arrow) thinks that anything out of their definition is a specific 
engineering design. They tend to be more prescriptive and would like the home builders to be 
following this definition.  There are still questions to be answered by EAG.  
 
 
(EAG) noted that the whole reason for having a ‘shape’ is that we are dealing with potential for 
lateral spread and that the design needs to be able to withstand the stretch if it occurs.  You can 
design them to be less regular and they may at some point carry out specific design trials that 
would go to a larger ratio.  There is a difference between one size fits all and specific 
engineering design. 
 
 
 
4. 
Importance levels & out buildings 
 
•  The Building Code defines importance levels for buildings. A detached outbuilding such as a 
garage is not intended for residential occupation and is an IL1. The MBIE guidance suggests that 
the foundations of these buildings do not need to meet the performance levels of house slabs and 
apart from in TC3; a NZS 3604 tied slab will meet this requirement. This is because there is a 
lower economic risk and lower risk to life safety in these uninhabitable buildings.  
 
 
noted that EAG is currently discussing the requirements for garage floors and defining when a 
garage can be considered as being detached.  
 
 noted EAG were interested in the 
insurer’s views on this matter with respect to any implications for future insurance cover. 
•  PMOs noted that even if the garage is detached, if the building consent application includes the 
installation of showers and toilet, Christchurch City Council’s BCA was considering the building 
could be used for sleeping purposes and requires IL2 requirements to be met.  A particular case 
recently came to light and was discussed at the meeting, where the garage had a shower and 
toilet in it; it was specified as a home gym on the consent documentation. CCC considered that 
because it could be used as a sleep out or minor dwelling if a kitchen is put in, higher foundation 
requirements were applied to it.  CCC concerns relate to the possible future use of the building as 
a habitable dwelling facility. The group discuss the legality of this approach and the majority view 
was that the described use on the consent documentation should be relied upon. The Building Act 
had provisions and mechanism in it to cater to a change in use, including needing to notify Council 
of a change of use. The approach was viewed as potentially penalising current home owners for a 
possible future use of the building. 
 
 noted that a number of engineers are getting 
RFIs questioning the IL classification for these situations.  
• 
 
 noted that if CCC is going to impose these rules then MBIE needs to look at this as 
soon as possible and provide the Council with some advice on this.  The potential to apply for a 
determination on the issue was raised.  
 
 to look into how many queries they have 
received.   
 
New action 
• 
 
 (MBIE) to talk to MBIE’s Determinations & Assurance team on this matter and 
report back along with some guidance and advice for CCC and COWG on this.  
 
 
5. 
Update from the Engineering Advisory Group (EAG) 
 
TRIM Ref: 13/110993 
 
Page 3 of 8 

---

Issue / Topic / Discussion 
•  Q&As on the residential guidance now up on MBIE website, with updates anticipated on a one to 
two monthly basis 
•  A Training Seminar was held 30 April for BCOs assisting CCC from other centres, as part of their 
induction 
•  Assisting MBIE Sector Education in planning further technical training for PMOs and designers.  
The next workshop is intended to cover repairs, but despite previous requests, no case studies 
have been provided by the PMOs. 
•  Independent costing exercise undertaken for Type 1 and Type 2b Surface Structures options for 
TC3 foundation. This will be shared with PMOs to compare their experiences. 
•  Finalising the guidance and worked examples for engineers covering RBW Certificates of Design 
Work, Producer Statements and engineering sign-off, following consultation with MBIE and BCAs. 
•  Finalising an information sheet with IPENZ and ACENZ to be provided by engineers to home-
owners to clarify expectations and responsibilities.  
•  Participated in the monthly CCC TC3 Foundation Consent Review Group meeting, and continue to 
lead the monthly meetings with MBIE, EAG members and MBIE. 
•  Continuing to assisting CCC with their Engineering Services Review, emphasising the need for an 
in-house geotechnical engineer.  The concept of an industry-resourced engineering panel for early 
stage (pre-App) reviews of significant commercial projects also developed. 
•  Liaising with EQC on work in relation to land and ground water. Monitoring the recent cement 
stabilisation trials for the ground improvement option at a school and residential property.   
•  Progressing the development of updated guidance on geotechnical and structural issues 
associated with light commercial and industrial buildings. 
•  Commencing involvement in a workstream on multi-unit issues, initially in support of EQC’s multi-
unit work programme 
 
New Action 
•  PMOs to provide example case studies of repair projects to 
 
 
 
6. 
Any Other Business 
 
•  MBIE has recently published some updated guidance documents – The Guide for Canterbury 
Builders Below-Floor Work and The Guide for Canterbury Builders Above-Floor Work.  Please let 
MBIE know if you would like some hard copies to distribute to your teams. 
•  MBIE’s Sector Education and Training group has commissioned Research NZ to undertake some 
survey work of builders and PMOs, to help inform future work programmes and web based 
training/workshops and the level of need for this training for builders in Canterbury.  
 
 (MBIE) will be approaching a number of COWG members seeking their support to talk 
to Research NZ, to help inform them about what areas of training are felt necessary for builders in 
Canterbury. Alternatively if you would like to volunteer to be a part of this please contact 
 
(
•  At the last CERA led workshop for the design and property sector it became apparent that there 
was a lack of awareness of the Consent Operations Working Group’s existence and what it 
does/the issues it covers off, etc.  To help address this 
 
 thought that sending a 
semi-regular newsletter to inform industry stakeholders on what issues the group is focussing on 
would be beneficial, along with a charter document to explain the sector working group and its 
activities.  Please refer attached copy of draft newsletter and charter document - if you have any 
thoughts/feedback on this then please send them to 
 – 
• 
 
 (CCC) reported that he has had a lot of meetings lately with designers and CCC 
has assisted some of them in completing a compliance/design features summary to accompany 
their consent applications.  Some designers are very good at this but others are not.  The 
compliance summary is extremely beneficial in helping Building Consent Officers to easily check 
that all information needed to process the consent is present.  Applications that are clear and easy 
to follow go through the Council system far more quickly.  
 has asked that PMOs talk to 
their designers to ensure they are using compliance indexes in their applications going forward.  A 
template is available on the Structural Engineering website or MBIE’s website refer: 
http://www.dbh.govt.nz/UserFiles/File/Publications/Building/Building-Act/design-summary-
checksheet-template.doc   
TRIM Ref: 13/110993 
 
Page 4 of 8 

---

Issue / Topic / Discussion 
•  CCC reported that building consent applications have gone up by approximately 50% in recent 
weeks and are still climbing.  Projections for 2013/14 and 2014/15 are that they will continue to 
increase by approximately 50% per annum.  The issue of consent banking was raised by 
 
(CCC). It was noted that a large proportion of recently consented new builds are still a long way 
from commencement. 
 asked if the PMOs are prioritising their consent applications 
correctly and appealed to PMOs prioritise and stagger the applications in order of when they 
actually need them to help CCC manage their increasing workload. 
 
New action 
• 
 
 to send a copy of the recommended outline of a Design Features Report to 
 
 for him to distribute amongst COWG members.  
 
 
7. 
Next meeting 
•  3pm, Tuesday, 18 June 2013, CCC Function Room, 53 Hereford Street 
 
 
The meeting concluded at 4.20pm
TRIM Ref: 13/110993 
 
Page 5 of 8 

---

 
Steering Group Actions List 
Ite
Date 
Date 
m 
Raised 
Description 
Sub-Group 
Owner 
Due 
Status 
1.    18/12/12 
Sub-group to hold in abeyance until consenting pilots results 
Foundations Repair/ Rebuild 
On 
Sub-group on 
returned. 
Thresholds and Re-levelling 
review 
hold 
 
2.    18/12/12 
Sub-group members to develop and host training workshops  Flood Risk, Floor Levels and 
19/2/13 
STILL 
for all PMOs and Insurer reps and their design contractors 
Existing Use Rights Sub-
OUSTANDING 
on how to access, interpret and apply CCC published / held 
Group  
19/2/13 
info on flood risk, floor levels and district plan existing use 
 
rights etc.  
 
3.    18/12/12 
Guidance for the Building Industry on Flood Risk, Floor 
Flood Risk, Floor Levels and 
19/2/13 
STILL 
Levels & Existing Use Rights guide to be finalised and 
Existing Use Rights Sub-
OUSTANDING 
published informally within PMOs as a useful working guide.   Group  
19/2/12 
 
 
4.    18/12/12 
Sub-group members to confirm that they agree its 
TC3 Foundation Design  
19/2/13 
STILL 
appropriate to merge this Sub-Group with the Foundation 
 
OUTSTANDING 
and Re-levelling Sub-Group 
 
5.    18/12/12 
Develop /Host training workshops for all PMOs on flood risk 
Flood Risk, Floor Levels and 
1/3/13 
STILL 
guidance.  
o arrange a meeting between himself, 
Existing Use Rights Sub-
OUSTANDING 
 to discuss this training 
Group  
19/2/12 
and decide on format and dates. 
 
 
6.    18/12/12 
Unknown Fill or Contaminated Sites - PMOs to discuss and 
N/A 
19/3/13 
PARTLY 
determine their actual information needs here including what 
COMPLETED 
access mechanism best suits them, and then communicate 
Some PMOs 
this directly to CCC. 
have been in 
 
touch with CCC. 
7.    19/2/13 
Discuss availability of BCOs assisting PMOs on site visits in 
N/A 
19/3/12 
OUTSTANDING 
relation to exempt building works. 
 
8.    19/03/13 
PMOS to engage with their insurers to seek and obtain 
Retaining Walls 
16/4/13 
OUTSTANDING 
confirmation that they are comfortable and supportive of 
them sharing retaining wall ownership and claim status 
information between PMOS in order to help facilitate a more 
efficient retaining wall repair or rebuild. 
9.    21/05/13 
 to send a copy of the recommended outline 
N/A 
18/6/13 
UNDERWAY 
of a Design Features Report to 
 for him 
to distribute amongst COWG members.  
 
TRIM Ref: 13/110993 
 
Page 6 of 8 

---

 
Ite
Date 
Date 
m 
Raised 
Description 
Sub-Group 
Owner 
Due 
Status 
10.    21/05/13 
 (MBIE) to talk to MBIE’s Determinations & 
N/A 
18/3/13 
UNDERWAY 
Assurance team on this matter and report back along with 
some guidance and advice for CCC and COWG on this.  
 
 
11.    21/05/13 
PMOs to provide example case studies of repair projects to 
N/A 
N/A 
16/6/13 
UNDERWAY 
 
 
Actions Closed This Meeting 
 
Ite
Date 
Date 
m 
Raised 
Description 
Sub-Group 
Owner 
Due 
Status 
12.    19/3/13 
to arrange the first meeting of the 
TC3 Foundations & 
16/4/13 
COMPLETED 
merged groups. 
Superstructure Design Sub-
Groups 
13.    19/03/13 
 (Arrow International) to update the flood 
Flood Risk, Floor Levels and 
21/5/13 
COMPLETED 
risk guidance document and 
(MWH 
Existing Use Rights Sub-
16/04/2013 
Recovery) to draft a PowerPoint presentation for the 
Group  
upcoming workshops.  This will be forwarded onto sub-
 
group members for their review and feedback at the next 
meeting schedule to take place 17 April. 
 
14.    19/2/13 
Engagement with design sector to see what their 
TC3 Superstructure Design 
19/3/13 
COMPLETED 
experiences/ needs are.   
Sub-Group  
16/04/13 
 
15.    19/02/13 
PMOs and BCAs to provide training topics for MBIE’s Sector  All 
21/5/13 
COMPLETED 
Education & Training team to consider delivering local 
21/05/13 
training on.  Cases encountered, ‘head scratchers’ etc. 
 
16.    19/03/13 
 to talk to 
 and 
 to agree on what the 
Retaining Walls 
16/4/13 
COMPLETED  
letter to the CEO of each insurance company needs to 
24/05/13 
include and then socialise draft with CERA, before 
forwarding it onto the insurers. 
17.    19/03/13 
MBIE 
 
 to discuss with CERA the 
Retaining Walls 
16/4/13 
COMPLETED  
possibility of jointly communicating with insurers to raise The 
24/05/13 
profile of and help them understand the complexity of issues 
surrounding retaining wall repairs/rebuilds, particularly those 
TRIM Ref: 13/110993 
 
Page 7 of 8 

---

 
crossing boundaries and ownership, and seek insurers 
support for the appropriate sharing of information amongst 
PMOs to help expedite the repair projects. 
 
TRIM Ref: 13/110993 
 
Page 8 of 8 

---

Document Outline

• COWG Minutes
  • Combined PMO Forum - Minutes 17.01.2012
    • Meeting Minutes
  • Combined PMO and TA Forum - Minutes - 2012-03-17_htm
    • Meeting Minutes
  • Combined PMO and TA Forum - Minutes - 2012-04-17_htm
    • Meeting Minutes
  • Combined PMO and TA Forum - Minutes - 2012-05-15
    • Meeting Minutes
  • Combined PMO and TA Forum - Minutes - 2012-07-17
    • Meeting Minutes
  • Consent Operations Steering Group (formerly Combined PMO & TA Forum) - Minutes - 2012-09-18
    • Meeting Minutes
  • Consent Operations Steering Group (formerly Combined PMO & TA Forum) - Minutes - 2012-10-16
    • Meeting Minutes
  • Consent Operations Steering Group (formerly Combined PMO & TA Forum) - Agenda - 2012-11-20
  • Consent Operations Steering Group (formerly Combined PMO & TA Forum) - Minutes 2012-12-18
    • Meeting Minutes
  • Consent Steering Operations Group - Minutes 2013-02-19
    • Meeting Minutes
  • Consent Steering Operations Group - Minutes 19.3.13
  • Consent Steering Operations Group - Minutes 16 04 13
  • Consent Steering Operations Group - Minutes May 2013
• Combined PMO and TA Forum - Minutes - 2012-06-19
  • Meeting Minutes
• Combined PMO and TA Forum - Minutes - 2012-08-21
  • Meeting Minutes
• Meeting Minutes
• Meeting Minutes

---