Building owner may walk away
A Timaru CBD building owner fears she will have to ‘‘walk away’’ from her building because of the prohibitive cost of earthquake strengthening – and believes others will do the same.
Her comments come after the Timaru District Council confirmed it was pressing ahead in issuing earthquake prone building notices for ‘‘priority buildings’’ to owners who have not had their assessment completed on time, with dozens of notices issued since December.
The council has until July 2027 to complete its list of earthquake prone buildings.
Jayne Blakemore, who owns the four-storey Meehan’s building which houses Koji Restaurant and other businesses at 5 to 7 George St, said an assessment revealed it is less than 34 per cent of New Building Standard, and therefore classed as earthquake prone. As it has been classed by the district council as a priority building. The deadline to complete seismic work is 2033.
Blakemore said while she was not surprised by the initial assessment result, she was now in limbo as to what to do next.
‘‘Based on early assessments the costs for the work will be in the hundreds of thousands and possibly in the millions, but I hope that by the time I get to actually doing further assessments, the technology for strengthening would make it cheaper,’’ she said.
‘‘The costs of strengthening are prohibitive, and there’re all sorts of practicalities I have to go through.
‘‘The cost of having to recompense or relocate the restaurant while work is undertaken will be significant.
‘‘I could very well have to walk away from the building. But it’s been a labour of love for me for more than 30 years, so that would be with a heavy heart.’’
Blakemore said with the Showgrounds Hill retail development getting consent, many other CBD building owners would be likely to face the same difficulties.
‘‘The development is going to take traffic away from the CBD, and puts a lot of building owners in a difficult position. They might not see the point of strengthening their buildings if they can’t find tenants for them,’’ she said.
However, Blakemore also urged building owners to get the assessments done in time.
‘‘The council will force you to do it anyway,’’ she said.
Stafford St building owner Bernie Sugrue said there were real pressures for building owners, as any work would have ‘‘far too many zeros’’ behind it in terms of cost.
‘‘We’ve had the building assessed, and while the building is not fully up to code, it is triple-bricked and very robust, and has withstood earthquakes before,’’ Sugrue said. ‘‘That said, we’ve done work on the building, but it’s a bit of a waiting game otherwise.’’
Timaru CBD group chairman and urban design consultant Nigel Gilkison said in his experience working with earthquake-prone buildings, it was ‘‘cheaper to strengthen them rather than knock them down’’.
‘‘One way or another, the work has to be done. There’s a reason the rules are there.’’
The council’s building control manager, Jayson Ellis, warned last month it would press ahead with issuing notices, having given building owners nearly a year to comply.
The Ministry for Business Innovation and Employment (MBIE) website lists 57 registered earthquake-prone buildings in the Timaru township alone.
Of those 57 buildings on the register, at least 42 of them have their earthquake rating listed as ‘‘not determined’’, meaning the council has not determined whether the building or part is earthquake prone, but is proceeding as if it had because the owner has not provided an engineering assessment by the due date.
All of those with ‘‘not determined’’ earthquake ratings also happened to be listed as ‘‘priority buildings’’.
The council’s process to identify ‘‘priority buildings’’ started in January 2019 and was completed May 2020, after it had identified the district’s strategic routes and thoroughfares.
In Temuka, there are 25 buildings listed on MBIE’s earthquake prone buildings register, with 16 of those with an earthquake-prone rating of ‘‘not determined’’. All but two of those 25 listed in Temuka are located in King St. In Geraldine, eight of the 16 buildings listed on the register are ‘‘not determined’’.
Ellis said council had a ‘‘number of options’’ should the seismic work not be completed within the statutory timeframe. These include:
The owner may apply to council for an exemption to carry out the seismic work; the owner of certain heritage buildings may apply for an extension of time to complete the seismic work; council may carry out the seismic work and recover those costs back from the owner; council may seek further advice from an engineer to determine risk; the owner may demolish the building.
‘‘The cost of having to recompense or relocate the restaurant while work is undertaken will be significant . . . I could very well have to walk away from the building. But it’s been a labour of love for me for more than 30 years, so that would be with a heavy heart.’’ Jayne Blakemore, building owner