Is the Government’s extension of earthquake-prone building remediation deadlines safe?

There are 812 earthquake-prone buildings in the Wellington region. Photo / Mark Mitchell

The Government has extended earthquake-prone building remediation deadlines by four years while it reviews rules which have been criticised as unfair. Some owners are relieved to have the breathing space, but is it safe to give them more time to fix their buildings, and does it make a mockery of the existing rules? Georgina Campbell investigates.

Apartment owner Iain Potter says having an extra four years to decide the fate of his earthquake-prone building is a “godsend”.

“The reprieve gives us the ... time to reassess, for the construction industry to actually settle down a little bit from its freneticism a year or two ago.”

The three-storey building in central Wellington has retail outlets on the ground floor and four apartments on the upper floors. It’s rated at 17 per cent of the New Building Standard. Anything less than 34 per cent is deemed earthquake-prone.

The deadline to strengthen it expires in January 2025. The building would have likely sat empty had the Government not intervened.

Those in multi-owned residential apartment buildings have long argued earthquake-prone building rules are being used as a “blunt instrument”. Hundreds have faced sleepless nights on the brink of financial disaster, and say they’re funding public safety outcomes even though the public does not use their buildings.

Their years of lobbying have finally paid off. The Government has announced it’s bringing forward a review of the rules and has extended remediation deadlines by four years.

The announcement was bittersweet for some because Cabinet ministers also decided to end a scheme offering deferred repayment loans of up to $250,000, providing a lifeline to owners struggling to pay for strengthening their homes.

Potter and fellow owners have known their building is earthquake-prone for more than a decade, and he is keenly aware people may not have much sympathy for their situation in light of that.

However, over the years, they have commissioned exploratory drilling and obtained several engineering assessments and designs. They have also considered demolishing or selling the building.

Owners were advised to wait until other buildings were strengthened because engineering solutions could improve with time and possibly become cheaper.

More than 471 earthquake-prone building deadlines across the country were due to expire between April 2024 and the end of 2027 before the Government’s announcement. Photo / Mark Mitchell

Instead, there was a global pandemic that turned the construction market white-hot.

About 18 months ago, Potter struggled to get anyone in the construction industry interested in the building, let alone provide quotes with certainty on cost.

Potter said he just wanted to move forward in a way that wouldn’t economically cripple owners.

“No one has done anything wrong, it’s just bad luck that we own buildings that don’t meet criteria that didn’t exist when we bought them.”

Senior engineer says people should have more time to strengthen buildings

More than 471 earthquake-prone building deadlines across the country were due to expire between April 2024 and the end of 2027 before the Government’s announcement.

Beca’s chief structural engineer Rob Jury, speaking to the Herald in a personal capacity, said the difficulties in meeting these deadlines will not go away simply by conducting a review and extending timeframes. Still, it did provide the opportunity to have a discussion.

Some deadlines in Wellington are as short as seven and a half years. The urgency around short timeframes was driven by the February 2011 Christchurch earthquake and advocacy from the likes of Ann Brower - the sole survivor of an incident in which a bus was crushed by falling masonry, Jury said.

Asked whether these timeframes were ever realistic, Jury said he viewed the situation as a long-term inter-generational problem.

Wellington’s Civic Square has become a graveyard of earthquake-prone buildings. Photo / Mark Mitchell

He therefore would not be disappointed if the review resulted in people having more time, but he would not be pleased if the need to upgrade the buildings faded.

“We must continue in Wellington to keep this continual improvement of buildings, and it would be disappointing if the tension came off that, in my view for relatively short-term gains.”

In the context of 50 years, for instance, four more years was a relatively small drop in the bucket, he said.

“The timeframe should reflect the risk. Although the risk is quite high if an earthquake occurs, the likelihood of an earthquake occurring is quite low so, overall, the risk is quite low.”

As for whether it was safe to extend the deadlines, Jury said “safe” was not an absolute term.

Government’s decision boils down to a bet

AUT construction professor John Tookey said it was safe as long as there weren’t any major earthquakes soon.

“The additional risk is only on the basis of the possibility of there being a new substantial quake leading to significant property damage or deaths in the intervening time between the old deadline and the new.

“The buildings concerned are not any more degraded or substandard than they were. The additional risk is likely very marginal, as the random inter-arrival time of a significant quake is relatively low.”

The Reading Cinema Complex on Courtenay Place has been closed since 2019 due to an earthquake risk. Photo / Mark Mitchell

Tookey said the Government’s decision was entirely understandable politically - to take some pressure off property owners in a difficult economic environment.

“Recent cost of living increases, construction cost inflation and interest rate rises have seen the ability of property owners to raise capital to undertake works become critically stretched.”

However, it remained a political risk for the Government, Tookey said.

“The worst-case scenario would be if there were two or three decent-sized shocks in relatively quick succession, which could see significant damage.”

Officials warned extending deadlines could be seen as unfair

Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) officials gave Building and Construction Minister Chris Penk advice in December about a possible “pause” of remediation deadlines, which was released to the Herald under the Official Information Act.

They warned there were risks to extending the deadlines.

The threat to life safety would not be mitigated for a longer period, placing people at continued risk in the event of an earthquake.

“In the meantime, cost pressures, difficulties accessing finance and insurance cover, and sector capacity constraints will likely continue to increase.

“Without intervention, other barriers to remediation will also continue to exist once the deadline extension ends, such as difficulty reaching consensus between owners and a lack of support to navigate the remediation process.”

Building and Construction Minister Chris Penk says without change, a significant number of buildings could sit empty, which would have a devastating impact on the economy in cities such as Wellington. Photo / Mark Mitchell

This would mean the issue of looming deadlines is delayed rather than solved, officials said.

Owners would also continue to face pressures outside of the rules, including market demand for buildings with higher seismic ratings and insurance prerequisites, officials said.

Those who have already remediated their buildings and met their statutory obligations may see the deadline extension for other building owners as unfair, they said.

“There is also a risk that building owners will stop remediation planning until the extended deadlines end or a system review has been completed, which could take a number of years.”

Asked whether it was safe to extend the deadlines, MBIE building policy manager Suzannah Toulmin said the main objective of the rules was to reduce the life-safety risk to people using existing buildings over time.

“During the review, life-safety risk is more likely to go unmitigated in some earthquake-prone buildings for a longer period of time. However, it is difficult to estimate what increase in life-safety risk this may create, as it is not possible to predict when and where a significant seismic event will take place.”

Toulmin encouraged building owners to continue with remediation plans where possible and stressed that when they met regulatory requirements under the current earthquake-prone building rules, they could not be asked to do so again.

“There is no intention for any changes following the review to require re-remediation.”

Asked whether the extension made a mockery of the existing rules, Toulmin acknowledged there was a risk building owners may not comply with the extended deadlines because they view them as “shifting”.

However, it was also clear that compliance was proving challenging for some building owners who were unlikely to meet their current deadlines, she said.

“Seven years after the implementation of the national EPB system, we now understand how the current settings work in practice, including what works and what is not working, or may not be working as intended.

“The review provides the opportunity to take on board these lessons and reassess if there are ways to address life-safety risk in existing buildings that are more effective and efficient.”

Georgina Campbell is a Wellington-based reporter who has a particular interest in local government, transport, and seismic issues. She joined the Herald in 2019 after working as a broadcast journalist.