Protection efforts a work in progress
Far from putting off earthquake strengthening, Wellington is well ahead of the game, writes Andy Foster.
Last Friday’s editorial made several useful points about Wellington’s earthquake-prone (EQP) heritage buildings and the challenge of paying for them all.
Quite rightly the importance of human safety was stressed.
Wellington City Council is also continually pushing the Government hard on the importance of strengthening buildings in key locations to a level where they are less likely to be crippled, closing down whole city blocks as happened in Christchurch. We need our city functioning as soon as possible after a major earthquake.
What I don’t agree with is the editorial’s fundamental premise that ‘‘Wellington’’ (private sector and council) is ‘‘putting it (strengthening) off’’.
Wellington City is a country mile ahead of any other jurisdiction in the country, because we have long taken seismic risk seriously. We have been strengthening infrastructure for more than 20 years, building community resilience, collaborating with lifeline operators, and undertaking extensive scientific research.
We began initial individual building assessments in 2006-07, completing all 5500 by 2015. In 2012 we had assessed as many buildings as every other council in New Zealand combined. Most other councils are only starting assessments now.
Your editorial says Wellington has some 130 EQP heritage buildings (currently 135). What it doesn’t say is that most EQP buildings in the city (671) aren’t heritage buildings, and the majority of our 800 heritage buildings and monuments aren’t EQP.
EQP buildings are rated below 34 per cent of New Build Standard (NBS) – the theoretical level to protect life, but they are not earthquake damaged.
The editorial refers to an already earthquake damaged Christchurch heritage building that collapsed on to a bus, killing 12 people, and implies Cuba St and Courtenay Place are the same as that Christchurch building. They aren’t.
I am sure the editorial didn’t intend to imply that 671 EQP buildings should be strengthened/demolished immediately.
All EQP building owners have received a strengthen/demolish timeframe of 10, 15 or 20 years from their assessment date depending on the level and nature of their building’s use. Many, many owners are proactively strengthening buildings now. Commercial tenants, school boards of trustees, private and public owners demand that.
For non-heritage buildings council provides three years’ rates relief (building will be rated at prestrengthening value for three years) I agree completely that we must work with apartment building owners where multiple ownership is often challenging, and we are.
For heritage buildings listed in the council’s District Plan we provide five years rates relief, with eight years for category 2 and 10 years for category 1 buildings on Heritage New Zealand’s list.
The editorial says council ‘‘deliberates over a meagre fund it gives out each year’’. In fact Iona Pannett and I persuaded the council to increase the heritage grants fund from $400,000 annually to $1 million for 2015/16 through 2017/18.
This year 20 heritage buildings received grants for EQ work. That support is helpful, sometimes crucial. The council is occasionally criticised for ‘‘giving money to private owners’’.
Heritage listing is not for the owner’s benefit, but for the benefit of the wider public. Public monetary support recognises that public good. The council has also already strengthened many of its own buildings. We are impatiently waiting to start the town hall.
Between 2012 and 2015 some 34 heritage buildings were strengthened, coming off the EQP list. Of those 135 current EQP heritage buildings approximately 58 have been strengthened and await certificates of compliance, are currently being strengthened, or strengthening planning is underway.
Where I agree with the editorial is that there will be a small residual group of EQP heritage buildings where strengthening is uneconomic, and decisions on relative heritage value will come into play.
Ideally, we would not lose any heritage buildings, but that is unlikely and we need to be well placed to retain the more important of those residual buildings. We may have to fight for some. Decisions may be required about which buildings to support financially and which are unaffordable.
We have just approved delisting the Gordon Wilson Flats. Its heritage value was deemed only moderate, and strengthening/repairing the building would have cost at least $17 million more than the resultant building would have been worth.
As you suggest we are considering prioritising between buildings within our District Plan, obviously a process that would involve public input.
In short, Wellingtonians, building owners and council, are in fact doing exactly what your editorial says, and we are doing so a good deal faster than suggested.
We need to be a safe, resilient city, and we are working hard to retain as much of our heritage as possible in getting there.
Andy Foster is a Wellington City councillor and the chairman of the transport and urban development committee.