What building owners think about the earthquake law change

Wellington building owners say changes to earthquake prone standards are a step in the right direction, while waiting for further details on what it will mean for them.

Under the new regime, unreinforced masonry buildings with unsecured facades and walls above public areas or neighbouring buildings will automatically be considered earthquake prone.

Concrete buildings with more than three storeys will be assessed for earthquake prone status under a "targeted retrofit methodology" to determine "critical vulnerabilities" that can lead to a collapse.

The government expected the changes to remove about 2900 buildings from the register, make remediation cheaper for a further 1440 buildings and 880 would not need any remedial work.

Only about 80 buildings would still require a full retrofit, due to the risks posed.

The government estimated it would save $8.2b across the country.

Building and construction minister Chris Penk said the previous regime, while well-intentioned, had proved to be uneconomic and difficult to achieve.

"Going forward, we're really comfortable that it will be the most high-risk buildings, and the most high-risk aspects of those buildings, that will be remediated," he said.

"Practical, realistic, sensible"

When Alison Bartley bought an old stable building on Ghuznee Street in 2007, it was 80 to 100 percent earthquake complaint.

But since the law change in 2017, it has been deemed earthquake prone.

The building was originally built in 1891, and the previous owner had strengthened it.

Bartley said the cost of further remediation was "ridiculously" high, and was pleased the government was scrapping the regulations.

"They're practical, realistic, sensible changes. And the fact that other places around the country had to be strengthened to the same standard as Wellington was just crazy. One-size-fits-all didn't work, and that's what we had."

Despite that, she had held on to the property.

"I can't really sell it, because no banks will lend on an earthquake prone building.

"The only people who would have bought it would have been developers who would pull it down, and I don't want to see historic buildings like this pulled down. I think they add to the character of the city."

The government will not compensate those who have already spent money remediating their properties.

"I don't think anyone should regret having invested in making their building more safe.

"The question is really, going forward, whether it's right to require others to do a thing that has proven beyond them economically, where that can't be justified in a proportionate or balanced system," Penk said.

The Inner-City Wellington residents' association said some apartment owners had sold up, but were unlikely to have made a good deal.

The association's spokesperson for seismic matters Geraldine Murphy said while some would be disappointed to have spent the money, or sold their property, they would still likely back the changes.

"Those people who have been in those positions supported the work that we were doing to get it reviewed, because we knew that the system was not right," Murphy said.

"It plainly had gone down a direction that wasn't intended, because the focus was always supposed to be on the most vulnerable, risky buildings. But it got way beyond that."

The association has been lobbying for a change since 2019, and Murphy said it was a step in the right direction.

"It's still early days for people to see what it means for them, but I know that many people felt that the current system was just unworkable," she said.

"It does look quite targeted, and there's different categories and things. So at this stage I'm feeling quite positive that we're moving in a direction that's better than where we were. We couldn't continue on what we had, we had to change it."

Murphy expected that even buildings needed a total retrofit would not be at the size or scale of what would have been required under the previous system, but was waiting to see more details on what that would mean.

Wellington City Council was considering what the changes would mean for council-owned buildings, but welcomed the announcement.

Mayor Tory Whanau said it removed a billion-dollar burden for building owners across the city.

"Many apartment and business owners simply cannot afford to upgrade their buildings to the current standards; you can see that reality in the empty buildings around town.

"These rule changes will save hundreds of owners from expensive repairs and focus resources on those buildings that are at the highest risk."

The council was also checking to see whether the changes meant the Capital E building was no longer earthquake prone, and had extended the pause on the City to Sea Bridge demolition until council officers reported back.

Bartley said she did not see any excuse now for the council to demolish the bridge.

'Devil's in the detail'

In smaller towns, with under 10,000 residents, unreinforced mansonry buildings under three storeys will not require remediation or warning notices, but owners still have to secure the facade before the building can be removed from the earthquake prone register.

Marton, in the Rangitikei District, has a population of 5,770, and was one of the places singled out by the Prime Minister as a place where the existing rules did not make sense.

Rangitekei mayor Andy Watson said half of the building on Marton's main street were currently earthquake prone, and half of those were heritage buildings.

"Once we know there is a risk, and in small, rural towns under 10,000 we no longer have to notify people of the risk, and so the question is who carries culpability or blame if there is a failure?" he asked.

He said the "devil's in the detail" over who decides what a critical vulnerability is, but was pleased the announcement contained a deadline extension of 15 years for earthquake prone building owners to carry out seismic work.

'The costs were in the billions'

Auckland, along with Northland and the Chatham Islands, will be removed from the system entirely.

Auckland's mayor Wayne Brown said it was a win for the city and the region, and was a step towards more affordable housing.

"Many older office buildings in Auckland Central are ripe for redevelopment as residential property. However, unnecessary seismic upgrades have pushed up construction costs, making these developments unattractive for finance companies and investors," he said.

ACT leader, and Epsom MP, David Seymour was the only person to vote against the law in 2016.

He said he had now been proven right.

"I just stood on some very simple principles: if you want to put a restriction on how other people can use their property, you better be able to show that there's a public good greater than the costs you're putting on them," Seymour said.

"That was never true with the earthquake rules, the costs were in the billions. And in the case of Auckland, it was estimated that we might save three people's lives in 10,000 years. That was never a good deal."

He said the changes would give property owners confidence to use or develop their property without facing prohibitive costs.

The announcement has also picked up initial broad support from Labour.

While waiting to pore over the finer details before deciding whether Labour would vote for the legislation, leader Chris Hipkins said some re-balancing was required to ensure remediation work was not needed.

"I think we were seeing that there were some areas where buildings that really didn't need remediation, or didn't need complete remediation, were having to have work done that was more than necessary to keep people safe."

Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.