|
|
Post by techworks on Aug 3, 2018 10:29:42 GMT 12
The Bay of Plenty Regional Council's OSET Plan has the following note on their schedule 6 Occupancy Allowance:
"In situations where large modern dwellings are proposed which have additional rooms beyond
those allocated as dining, lounge, bedrooms, (e.g. "family", "recreation", "games", "office",
"study", "sewing", "work" rooms) which could have potential to be utilised as bedrooms with
different furnishings, an additional occupancy allowance is to be made on the basis of 1 extra
person times the ratio of the total floor area of the additional room(s) to that of the smallest
designated bedroom and rounded up to the next whole number."
Auckland City GD06 has a similar statement.
This additional occupancy allowance to these “potential” bedrooms increases both the septic tank and land application system sizes which can increases construction costs significantly.
Where do we draw the line at allowing for "potential" future occupancy? It is not the role of Regional Council to require a landowner to provide for possible future expansion or change in use. This is a decision for the landowner to make based on financial constraints and the level of future proofing they wish to invest in.The OSET system has been approved under a building consent, and should have a loading certificate that sets out the maximum occupancy it is designed for. It is the land owners responsibility to ensure the OSET system is operated and maintained within the design parameters.
However, when the property is sold, the only mechanism in place to check on the OSET system is if the new owner requests a LIM report from the Territorial Authority, and that LIM report identifies there is an OSET system (hopefully with the loading capacity stated)...and that the prospective landowner understands the implication of the OSET systems loading limit.
A typical example might be a 4 b/r house with media and family room. The design assumes the media and family rooms will not be used for sleeping and has water reduction fittings and fixtures so is designed for an occupancy of 6 people at 990 l/day. Several years later the property is sold and new owners remove water reduction fittings and have occupancy of 10 persons so now 2000 l/day....system fails after 5 yrs use!
So there are two issues here: 1) should these other rooms be counted as bedrooms and 2) should we be making allowances for water reduction fittings when they are so easy to remove?
|
|
|
|
Post by jonshort on Aug 3, 2018 12:53:31 GMT 12
Hi Grant,
Next thing you know we will be allowing for the garage too!
An element of common sense should be applied as it is uneconomic to increase occupancy willy nilly just because the house has a large lounge or family room & the council does not trust them. And as you say, how far do you go with this especially if the house sells. As you say the onus is on the property owner to be aware of their systems capacity limits.
The fact is that Council are asking for extra occupancy to be allowed for because in my mind they do not have the systems (yet) or staffing capacity to police compliance. In my mind the occupancy limit for the system should be flagged on the LIM in my mind so that a prospective purchaser has no excuse but to be aware of or notified at time of purchase, their waste watre systems max occupancy & capacity.
Other than that Council are also notified if the owner changes due to rate payer database changes occurring. At that stage this could be flagged by councils comp systems & a letter sent advising the new owner/rate payer of the occupancy / capacity limit for their system & asking for confirmation that they are not exceeding this. Ditto a maintenance contract if required for their treatment plant.
So on this basis I do not support Councils messing with design standards in this way as it achieves nothing except additional costs to the owner to provide more occupancy & therefore capacity than they may need. On smaller lots such as exist in Hahei, it would make it almost impossible to fit your disposal field in due to the increase in application area.
Re water reduction fixtures. I do not like relying on this to get volumes down, but in places like Hahei where the site is only 900m² if can often be the only way to get it to work.
I think that there needs to be accountability with the property owner & the potential for a fine if they knowingly remove WR fixtures or flow restricters or overload their SS plant through exceeding the design occupancy. The regional council or district council could introduce some sort of bylaw to impose a fine in such circumstances.
However, policing & council staff capacity will always be the issue so use of databases & auto,mated systems to flag things is useful.
Cheers,
Jon
PS: good to see you have set this forum up Grant. Well done.
|
|
|
|
Post by wwindbop on Aug 31, 2018 13:05:15 GMT 12
Yes, to second Jon, thanks for setting up the forum Grant. Changes in regulations as well as many new brands of OSET system suppliers are coming fast to our growing market, so it’s great to have a neutral place we can discuss the changes and implications for us all.
I’m a bit on the fence with this particilar topic around occupancy and loading design. We all see the complex difficulties associated with upgrading a septic tank to an AWTS or upgrading an AWTS to a larger capacity by installing an extra tank, when gardens have matured, fences etc are up and the house and sheds are blocking access for trucks and machinery. Talk about “costs”.
So there’s a part of me that feels installing an appropriately sized OSET system in the first instance (rather than retro-fit later) is the sensible thing to do, for all parties concerned at the time of construction and into the future. We hear repetitively of home owners wanting to add a minor dwelling or addition, but asking us to provide a document stating their system will cope, when it really won’t but they just don’t want the extra cost. (Hang on, I thought Kiwis really cared about their environment? Perhaps only if they don’t have to pay?)
Frankly, if we all put our commercial and personal feelings aside and focus on the future of our precious environment, I think insisting anyone building a new home does pay whatever is necessary to build an OSET system of ‘provisionally adequate capacity’ to cover future occupancy is a fair and reasonable request by the Regional Council tasked with environmental management.
Regarding policing and enforcement, this is actually a simple process. Some TA’s (FNDC is one) are doing a stirling job by requiring all OSET systems are serviced by a competent Service Agent for the brand, and that Service Agent is obligated to provide a carbon copy (via email) of his service document to the council following each routine service or emergency call out. If Any problems or system failures are to be reported by the Service Agent to the council at submission of the document. If FNDC haven’t received a service report within 7 months of the last, an automated letter is sent to the address reminding of their obligation to have their OSET system serviced.
What this management process means is that the council doesn’t have to increase human resources to manage/police every single OSET system in their region, but only to visit a property when something has failed. This also means that a system not coping due to being overloaded will gain the attention of the council and actions will be mandatory to rectify.
So a quality relationship between each brand’s Service Agent and council is the key to success. However, my experience is that councils are all care at the time of initial consent, but absolutely no responsibiliy after the build is complete. So...? Not sure if this really helps designers, but it should encourage designers to recommend larger capacity systems, rather than trying to get away with the smallest possible.
|
|
|
|
Post by wwindbop on Aug 31, 2018 13:11:39 GMT 12
And a quick add...I agree the requirement of OSET loading capacity for total occupancy should definitely be a requirement on every rural property LIM report.
No excuses later so fines for overloading would be totally justified.
|
|
simon
New Member
Posts: 19
|
Post by simon on Sept 5, 2018 17:44:44 GMT 12
Hi
In my experience all rooms that are bedrooms or could be bedrooms with little effort such as a study etc should be designed for.
How do I determine which extra room should be classed as bedrooms, rooms that are extra to the core rooms should be included if they have only one internal acess door (ie they do not form a through way to another room) do not contain a fireplace, are not too small as to be impractical to use as a bedroom, or have structures within the room which would severely restrict the easy conversion of the room (ie on a guest basis) an example would be a media room with inbuilt cinema seating.
Within any design I believe we should only be thinking about max design for the proposed house not for any future work as renovation/additions would be covered by a new consent with requirement to look at wastewater system again. Max design should be based on guests accomodated, eg family staying at xmas holidays etc
With regards point 2, we can only do so much, with regular maintenace it would be expected that changes to the system would be seen. This is also an issue with stormwater detention tanks where home owners remove/block the orifice outlet to provide more tank water supply.
I agree the presence of a Wastewater system should be registered at council, PIM or on title so that incoming purchasers are aware of requirements for its proper functioning.
Regards
Simon
|
|
jane
New Member
Posts: 1
|
Post by jane on Oct 5, 2018 15:59:22 GMT 12
Hi Grant, Next thing you know we will be allowing for the garage too! An element of common sense should be applied as it is uneconomic to increase occupancy willy nilly just because the house has a large lounge or family room & the council does not trust them. And as you say, how far do you go with this especially if the house sells. As you say the onus is on the property owner to be aware of their systems capacity limits. The fact is that Council are asking for extra occupancy to be allowed for because in my mind they do not have the systems (yet) or staffing capacity to police compliance. In my mind the occupancy limit for the system should be flagged on the LIM in my mind so that a prospective purchaser has no excuse but to be aware of or notified at time of purchase, their waste watre systems max occupancy & capacity. Other than that Council are also notified if the owner changes due to rate payer database changes occurring. At that stage this could be flagged by councils comp systems & a letter sent advising the new owner/rate payer of the occupancy / capacity limit for their system & asking for confirmation that they are not exceeding this. Ditto a maintenance contract if required for their treatment plant. So on this basis I do not support Councils messing with design standards in this way as it achieves nothing except additional costs to the owner to provide more occupancy & therefore capacity than they may need. On smaller lots such as exist in Hahei, it would make it almost impossible to fit your disposal field in due to the increase in application area. Re water reduction fixtures. I do not like relying on this to get volumes down, but in places like Hahei where the site is only 900m² if can often be the only way to get it to work. I think that there needs to be accountability with the property owner & the potential for a fine if they knowingly remove WR fixtures or flow restricters or overload their SS plant through exceeding the design occupancy. The regional council or district council could introduce some sort of bylaw to impose a fine in such circumstances. However, policing & council staff capacity will always be the issue so use of databases & auto,mated systems to flag things is useful. Cheers, Jon PS: good to see you have set this forum up Grant. Well done. |
|
