Editorial: 'Get real' on heritage protection

WHILE the debate around earthquake-proofing buildings continues - to what extent and how soon should the work be done - the Property Council raises another point lost in the translation.

The council's chief executive, Connal Townsend, was reported in the National Business Review saying that it was wrong that building owners could not treat strengthening costs as a cost of doing business.

So, while the legislation around quake-proofing building keeps getting amended, Mr Townsend said the latest changes did nothing to address the problem of financial implications.

Strengthening buildings can't be regarded as a cost of doing business, so owners can't write off these costs either against income or depreciate their buildings' value; the tax laws don't allow anyone to do that with commercial property.

So owners are between a rock and hard place, because any money spent is regarded as increasing the building's capital value, even if that building's value doesn't actually increase.

In provincial centres like Wanganui, which has one of the largest numbers of threatened buildings in the country in its central business district, owners have struggles enough trying to find tenants, let alone face the financial challenges the building codes will be demanding.

Reaching a minimum of 34 per cent of the National Building Standard is aimed at saving lives, not buildings. But if a quake does compromise a building's structural integrity, and it's not heritage listed, it can simply be demolished.

Spare a thought for owners of heritage buildings in Wanganui; the potential imposition for them is much greater than it is for owners of non-heritage buildings.

Mr Townsend argues for a more "realistic" attitude to be adopted to counter the belief held by some "that every single old building must be protected, no matter what".

If you put yourself in the shoes of a heritage building owner in Wanganui, then he has a point.