SkyCity Convention Centre fire: 'Fundamental errors' in draft report
Friday, 31 January 2020
A draft fire engineering report for the SkyCity Convention Centre was riddled with 'basic mistakes'.
That's according to an expert consultant who peer-reviewed the report, covering fire safety designs and strategies for the Auckland building.
The final version of the report is understood to be vastly different from a deficient draft rubbished by the consultant.
However, the final report prepared for Fletcher Construction, and rubber-stamped by Auckland Council, did not discuss the possibility of a fire starting on the roof.
**READ MORE:
* SkyCity Convention Centre fire costly for subbies and hire companies
* SkyCity Auckland Convention Centre fire: Firefighters officially finish working at the site
* SkyCity convention centre fire: Engineering report did not plan for roof blaze
* SkyCity Convention Centre fire: FENZ rejects claim aerial firefighting fleet 'in tatters'
* SkyCity Auckland Convention Centre fire scene was like Apocalypse Now, says CEO
* The Detail: Salvaging the SkyCity convention centre will be a monumental task**
On October 22, a blaze erupted on the roof of the unfinished convention centre and burned for days, causing widespread disruption in central Auckland and extensive damage to the centre.
The fire engineering report was prepared by Norman, Disney and Young (NDY) consulting engineers for Fletcher Construction.
Anvil Fire Consultants director Geoff Merryweather, a highly regarded Auckland fire engineer, peer-reviewed the drafts and was deeply unimpressed at the work he saw.
Stuff obtained emails between Merryweather, NDY director Ben Ferguson and others under the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act, dated April 2016, showing the extent of his worries.
'I am very concerned as to the quality of the design and documentation received at this late stage.
'This is a long way off being a design I can sign off and I will not accept a design that has so many fundamental errors and basic mistakes.'
His email outlined 20 separate errors.
They ranged from the wrong detectors being specified to errors in the modelling of fires.
Merryweather concluded by saying the quality assurance (QA) procedures at NDY appeared to be remiss.
'Despite the fire report being signed off by Ben Ferguson [the] extent of the errors and omissions are widespread and shall impact significantly on the design outcome.'
Earlier emails in the chain show terse exchanges between the consultants and the peer reviewer.
'You might want to do some QA before you send the results next time,' wrote Merryweather in one email.
Replied Ferguson: 'I am not sure the tone of your email is warranted and do not wish to get into an email exchange. Our QA procedures are robust.'
Contacted for comment for this article, Merryweather said the final report met his standards.
He would not comment further, citing contractual obligations.
An industry source said the final report was 'vastly different' from the early draft.
It is understood staffing changes were made at NDY in terms of the engineers working on the project before the final report was delivered.
In an emailed statement, Sally Grey, Auckland Council acting general manager of building consents, observed the report referred to in the emails remained a draft going through the 'standard peer review' process.
'The purpose of a peer review is to pick up any issues and address them before being lodged with the building consent application. It was the final report signed off by peer reviewer … that was lodged for Building consent.'
Spokespeople for Fletcher Building and Sky City both said any issues raised in early draft fire engineering reports for the centre were addressed to the peer reviewer's satisfaction.
Investigations into the cause of the blaze continued and it was too early to say if a new fire engineering report was needed, the spokespeople each said.
NDY did not respond to requests for comment.