Building owners’ choices expensive
Earthquake-prone building owners in Southland could be in for some tough and expensive choices as the Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Act 2016 draws closer.
Southland District Council environmental services group manager Bruce Halligan said the strengthening could be an expensive exercise for building owners.
No one number could be put on the cost of earthquake strengthening, however, it would require investment, and in some cases significant investment, from building owners to bring properties up to code, Halligan said.
However, the timeframes to do so were ‘‘reasonably long’’ but there was an expectation building owners would address the issues.
Heritage status on a building did not necessarily mean ‘‘absolutely nothing’’ could happen in a heritage area, such as the Winton heritage precinct, but significant alterations or demolition could be required, he said.
A heritage fund set up by the Dunedin City Council was having positive results in that city, with building owners able to apply for funds to retain rather than demolish their earthquake-prone buildings.
When asked if he would like to see a similar fund set up for Southland, Halligan said he did not want to make a comment as it was a ‘‘political decision’’.
‘‘It has been discussed previously with previous councils and at that time there was no resolution [to set up a similar fund],’’ he said.
At Thursday’s Southland District Council Regulatory and Consents Committee meeting, the council providing some sort of incentive for building owners was discussed.
However, this posed a difficulty for the council as it was likely costs would be non-recoverable but there was an element of public good in keeping them safe, Halligan said. ‘‘There’s an element of public good in keeping the public safe ... but as a business it means it’s reasonably difficult for us.’’
A report to the council says the new Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Act, which comes into effect on July 1, seeks to create a nationally consistent system and methodology for identifying and managing earthquakeprone buildings, including timeframes for action based on risk. It also seeks to provide a balance between public safety, costs and heritage values.
However, the amendment act also imposes several new and important duties on councils. Among those is a requirement to report regularly to the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment on the progress of identifying potentially earthquake-prone buildings so information can be included in a national register.
The amendment act also requires councils to identify potentially earthquake-prone buildings within between two and a half and 15 years, depending on the building’s risk factor.
From there, if a building is identified as earthquake-prone, owners must either strengthen or demolish the building between seven and a half and 35 years, depending on how much of a risk the building is.
Southland was one of just a few councils whose geographical area encompassed all three of the earthquake risk zones, Halligan said. The closer communities were to the Alpine fault, the higher risk they were classed, he said.
The council has identified 103 earthquake-prone buildings but estimates that number is more like 400 across the entire district.
‘‘That’s an estimate based on a desktop exercise,’’ Halligan said.
The 400 buildings were public or commercial buildings and did not include residential houses, he said.
Building solutions team leader Michael Marron said unreinforced masonry was high risk because in the event of an earthquake, it had the potential to block roads which could prevent emergency and aid services from reaching affected areas.
‘‘We have an extensive list of potentially earthquake prone buildings [and council will] have to revisit and reassess them,’’ he said.