22.08.2024

Consultation underway on management of seismic risk of earthquake-prone buildings

Only a few days before the Wellington Girls College community learnt two levels of a building which had been extended in 1994 were just 15% of the new build standard (NBS), a bill to extend the deadline for remediating many earthquake-prone buildings had its first reading.

Earlier this year Cabinet agreed that remediation deadlines for earthquake-prone buildings that had not lapsed as at 2 April 2024 should be extended for four years.  The intention is to allow time for a review of the management of seismic risk in buildings (Review) to be completed and any subsequent reforms to be implemented.  The Government has expressed concern that New Zealand has over 5,000 earthquake-prone buildings and in many instances these buildings are not being remediated because complying with the regulations is proving too complex and too costly. 

Building (Earthquake-prone Building Deadlines and Other Matters) Amendment Bill

The Amendment Bill to give effect to the 4 year extension had its first reading on 8 August and is expected to be passed by the end of 2024.  Submissions close on Monday, 26 August 2024 and the Transport and Infrastructure Committee is intending to hear oral evidence on the Bill on Thursday, 29 August. 

What is the purpose of the Review?

The Review is now underway and a final report is expected to be published by mid-2025 after it has been considered by Cabinet.  

The purpose of the Review is to consider how well the current system for managing seismic risk in existing buildings is working, identify problems, assess a range of options, and provide recommended actions.  To achieve this purpose the Review will:

  • consider society’s expectations and willingness to pay to mitigate the risk of injury and death in an earthquake, and for improving the resilience of buildings over time;
  • recommend regulatory responses that balance life safety risks against the costs of regulation and impact on private property owners;
  • identify barriers to meeting regulatory requirements and the types of support or incentives that would help building owners to better manage seismic risk; and
  • consider how outcomes from seismic risk requirements align with broader Government objectives. (The Cabinet paper highlighted the Government’s priorities to grow the economy and to deliver more affordable housing.)

Who should be involved in the Review?

Feedback is being sought now from anyone wishing to make a comment on their experience with the current earthquake-prone building system and any ideas about future management of seismic risk in existing buildings.  A simple and short feedback form is available on MBIE’s website Earthquake Prone Buildings Feedback.  Respondents are grouped by building owners, building tenants, and industry/other which includes a tick box for building users and members of the public.  Quite simply, anyone with a view is invited to contribute and can then choose to be kept informed of updates.  It is clearly intended to be a quick way to become engaged in the consultation process.

Assessing and measuring seismic risk

The Review will also involve technical experts and external peer review for technical details.  The topics up for discussion include:

  • Possible alternatives to the percentage new building standard measure (%NBS).
  • Whether the age and construction method of buildings, their type of use, or the vulnerability of occupants mean different regulatory requirements should apply.
  • Beyond the risk to life safety, for what building use types (such as hospitals, schools and retirement facilities) does resilience need to be prioritised?
  • How should varying degrees of seismic hazard across New Zealand be reflected in different requirements in different areas?
  • To what extent should risk be managed by mandatory requirements? Or can risk be accepted through appropriate disclosure, or the action of non-regulatory drivers (such as insurer requirements)?
  • How should risk be understood in relation to users of buildings who are not the owners, such as residential or commercial tenants, retail customers and other visitors, users of adjacent buildings and pedestrians in the vicinity?
  • How important is it to ensure existing buildings are more resilient to damage?
  • Can insurance estimates of risk be treated as a proxy for risk in relation to the prospect of damage to buildings (i.e. in relation to building resilience, as distinct from risk to life)?
  • How will future changes in the availability of insurance in New Zealand impact the management of risk?

Timeline

Once the Government has identified the recommendations it accepts in the final report, there will be detailed development and assessment of the options to deliver those recommendations and a discussion document will be released for public consultation.  This stage of work is expected to run from mid-2025 to 2026.  The Government also wants any legislation which is required to implement the recommendations to be introduced and passed in 2026.

If you have any questions about earthquake-prone buildings and the current Review or the Amendment Bill, please get in touch with our Construction or Property Team or your usual contact at Hesketh Henry.

Disclaimer:  The information contained in this article is current at the date of publishing and is of a general nature.  It should be used as a guide only and not as a substitute for obtaining legal advice.  Specific legal advice should be sought where required.

Do you need expert legal advice?
Contact the expert team at Hesketh Henry.
Kerry
Media contact - Kerry Browne
Please contact Kerry with any media enquiries and with any questions related to marketing or sponsorships on +64 9 375 8747 or via email.

Related Articles / Insights & Opinion

shutterstock
Bowen case part 2 – the ins and outs of the determination
In our last article, we wrote about what protected disclosures are and who can make them. In this article, we discuss the Employment Relations Authority (Authority) determination, Bowen v Bank of New ...
13.09.2024 Posted in Employment
Are trustees bound to relationship property agreements?
In Rawson v Prescott [2024] NZHC 1919, the High Court addressed a dispute involving trust property and a relationship property agreement. Mr RR, trustee of the GR Family Trust, sought summary judgment...
10.09.2024 Posted in Private Wealth
shutterstock
Bowen case part 1 – blowing the whistle
You may have heard of the term ‘whistleblowing’, but have you heard of ‘protected disclosures’? Protected disclosures are a creature of the Protected Disclosures (Protection of Whistleblowers)...
10.09.2024 Posted in Employment
Construction theme black and white
Contractors take note – are any of your retentions clauses prohibited provisions?
In Stevensons Structural Engineers 1978 Ltd (in liq) v McMillan & Lockwood (PN) Ltd & Anor [2024] NZHC 2415, the High Court held that the timing for payment out of retentions in certain subcon...
05.09.2024 Posted in Construction
Avoiding the Grey Area: Interpreting Trust Beneficiary Classes
Beneficiary classes in trust deeds should be clearly defined to ensure the assets of the trust benefit the people who the settlor(s) of the trust originally intended.   If they are not, then disputes...
05.09.2024 Posted in Private Wealth
vecteezy square wooden blocks lined up on a wooden workbench  Insurance Icons centered
Hesketh Henry’s Insurance Team author LexisNexis Practical Guidance Insurance
Hesketh Henry’s Insurance Team is delighted to celebrate the launch of Practical Guidance Insurance. LexisNexis has launched Practical Guidance Insurance containing 12 topics and over 50 sub-topics ...
03.09.2024 Posted in Insurance
Contract dictionary
Is ‘close enough’ OK? Reasonable endeavours to overcome a force majeure event
The English Supreme Court’s decision in RTI Ltd v MUR Shipping BV [2024] UKSC 18 has demonstrated the effect sanctions may have on a contract as a force majeure event and clarified the parameters of...
03.09.2024 Posted in Trade and Transport
SEND AN ENQUIRY
Send us an enquiry

For expert legal advice, please complete the form below or call us on (09) 375 8700.