Court rules on quake standards
LOCAL bodies cannot force the strengthening of earthquake-prone buildings beyond the minimum standard set by law, the Supreme Court has ruled.
The Building Act requires a level of code compliance for existing buildings of about 34 per cent of the standard set for new buildings.
But six days after the September 2010 earthquake, an extraordinary meeting of Christchurch City Council voted for a standard aiming at 67 per cent. The Supreme Court has now decided the higher standard cannot be imposed.
Canterbury University supported the higher standard, and continued to argue for it through the courts, even after the city council had stopped trying to enforce the policy.
Wellington City Council buildings portfolio leader Iona Pannett said the court decision confirmed legal advice the Wellington council was given that it could not raise the standard. However, some building owners were having to strengthen to a higher standard at the insistence of tenants and prospective tenants, she said.
The earthquake-prone building rules apply to commercial buildings and residential buildings of at least two storeys and at least three households.
The law relating to earthquake-prone buildings is being reviewed.
The Insurance Council challenged Christchurch City Council’s ability to impose the higher standard. It said it would potentially have a significant impact on members having to meet insurance claims to repair buildings to that standard.
The Insurance Council said the policy could also have deterred reinsurers from investing in the New Zealand market. The court said the difference to the university between the two levels of com- pliance was about $140 million.
After parts of the council’s policy were set aside by the High Court, Canterbury University and the body corporate for a Christchurch apartment building appealed against it. They lost in the Court of Appeal. The university alone lodged an appeal in the Supreme Court.
Under the Building Act, an existing building is considered earthquake-prone if a moderate earthquake would exceed its ultimate capacity and it was likely to harm anyone or damage other property.
That standard was usually taken to mean reaching about 34 per cent of the standard applying to new buildings. But some buildings might have to exceed that to be no longer considered earthquake prone, the majority of the fivemember court said.
The university was ordered to pay the Insurance Council $25,000 costs for the failed appeal.