Hamish Firth: Mt Hobson Group on the changes to the earthquake-prone building system

A significant slash to the number of quake-prone buildings. 

The Government's introducing an Amendment Bill to scrap and replace the New Building Standard – estimated to save building owners more than eight billion dollars. 

It'll see Auckland, Northland, and the Chatham Islands removed from the regime. 

Mt Hobson Group Director Hamish Firth told Kerre Woodham the review has come up with a system that is better balanced, more nuanced, and more proportionate to the risk. 

He says the kneejerk reaction in the wake of the Christchurch earthquake was perhaps right for the time, but it’s probably taken too long to do a review and ensure the system is working.  

LISTEN ABOVE 

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:06):
You're listening to the Carrywood and Mornings podcast from News
Talks hed B.

Speaker 2 (00:11):
As we have been discussing building in construction. Minister Chris
Penk has now scrapped the one size fits all regime
created in the legislative aftermath of the christ Church earthquakes. Instead,
eased regulations will see Auckland, Northland and the Chatham Islands
removed from the regime and rules will be more targeted,

(00:35):
more precisely, focusing on the parts of buildings most likely
to pose a risk to life. Mount Helpson Group is
a specialist urban planning and resource management consultant. Consultancy director
Hamish Birth joins me, Now, very good morning to you,
morning careing. Have you been have you been part of

(00:56):
an organization that has been advocating for this sort of change.
Did it come out of nowhere or is this as
a result of lobbying on the part of industry.

Speaker 3 (01:07):
Now. I think twenty twenty four Cabinet asked MB to
have a review. I think there'd been significant number of
people from your large government building owners, to churches to
small town heritage building owners who sort of said it
doesn't seem to be working. One size doesn't fit all,

(01:27):
can we have a review And MB's carried that out.
They did, you know, they put a steering group in place,
they had an independent chair, they consulted widely, your chambers
of commerce, your property counsels, your work safes, and they've
come back with what I think is sensible, common sense
and perhaps proportionate are The example I would give to

(01:49):
you is we all drive cars, and we accept from
time to time tragically there's going to be accidents and deaths.
But we also accept that if we drive carefully, if
we're cars have warrants, and if we wear seatbouts, that
that will be lower. And I think what this review
is doing is coming out with a system that's better balanced,
more nuanced. And yeah, I suppose I used that word

(02:11):
proportionate to the risk.

Speaker 2 (02:13):
It just makes so much sense what I suppose. It's
just a matter of ideology really that if you think
every single life must be preserved at whatever the cost,
that's going to inform one set of rules. And I
guess it's understandable after a country has suffered a terrible
loss you react in one way, but perhaps it shouldn't

(02:37):
be through the law books. That shouldn't be the first reaction.

Speaker 3 (02:41):
I think we were all shocked, visibly shocked by what
happened in christ Church in twenty eleven. You know, we
had the CTV building collapse completely killing people, and we
had facades falling off people and crushing people in streets.
So I think that that response, you might say, knee jerk,
but perhaps was right for the time, the right fit.

(03:03):
What we might say is that it's probably taken too
long to do a review of that to make sure
the system is working. So, you know, we've seen buildings
left derelict, We've had confusion, You've had the difficulty of
trying to marry up heritage building status with you know,
putting cross beams through them, and how do you manage that.

(03:25):
You've had counsels saying, well, if you're going to upgrade
the building, you've got to upgrade the fire systems and
the disability and all of this, and then building owners said,
we just can't afford it.

Speaker 2 (03:34):
Yeah, And there've been apartment owners around the country who
have been left almost bankrupt trying to come up with
the money required to reinforce buildings when it wasn't actually necessary.

Speaker 3 (03:46):
Yeah, and that's a tragedy. And I'm sort of glad
that in a way that Northland, Auckland and look the
Chatham Islands, of all places have been taken out, so
there would be a large number of building owners who
you can really breathe a sigh of relief. What the
government is saying, or this report is saying, is that
the risk is low and we accept that. Low risk

(04:09):
means that we don't have to upgrade because the chances
of an earthquake are very very low.

Speaker 2 (04:15):
Yeap, It doesn't mean no risk. Low risk doesn't mean
no risk, but it does mean as you say, proportion,
it's a great word to describe it.

Speaker 3 (04:23):
And what they've also done is before it was about
a proportion of the New Building Standard or the MBS,
so you had to be greater than thirty four percent,
your building had to be engineered to a level that
was greater than that, and then at the minimum you
had to go up to sixty six percent. So they've
got rid of that fairly blunt approach and they've come
back and they've said you've got some choices. You can

(04:45):
secure your facade, you can do a general retrofit, you
might have to fully retrofit, or you can just remain
on that register and maybe the building has to be unoccupied,
maybe it is hazardous, maybe it is time that it
got demolished. What they've also done, which I think is good,
is given a fifteen year extension to all of this

(05:07):
work having to be done. And what that allows buildings
to do or owners to do, is to set it
up financially and get into a position. They've also taken
out some of the government buildings that were at risk
of having to be upgraded and giving them time to
get their houses and order. In terms of costs for upgrades.

Speaker 2 (05:28):
It's remarkable how few buildings actually need the full works
done on them now, and.

Speaker 3 (05:35):
I think that was part of the problem. You may
have failed the thirty four percent NBS because perhaps your
facade wasn't secure, but you were required to upgrade your
whole building. Now, what they're saying is where is the risk,
let's target that so that means it'll have less cost
and less disruption to building owners and occupiers.

Speaker 2 (05:56):
And what will that mean for the people you work
with now?

Speaker 3 (06:01):
I think it allows them certainty, it reduces the risk.
The other thing was you'd get an engineering report. Council
may disagree a different engineer would have a different approach
who was right, who was wrong. What we've probably got
in Auckland is there's a lot of office buildings that
perhaps are no longer the paths used by data and

(06:22):
are ready for a change of use that perhaps residential
or apartment. That will mean that'll be able to be
done in a much simpler and cost effective way.

Speaker 2 (06:32):
How do you mitigate against what happened in the CTV
disaster where an unqualified person was responsible for designing the
building and then compounding that you had construction flaws as well.
Is there any way of mitigating that other than a
person's own decency?

Speaker 3 (06:53):
Probably, sadly carry there's not. You know, you're always going
to have that rogue element or that odd person who
doesn't quite follow the rules, and tragically a lot of
people died unnecessarily. I just don't think there's any way
to get around it. I think it's we've got We've
probably got a very strong and good engineering body, and
they probably need to maintain those high standards. But you're

(07:15):
always going to have that odd time where the odd
person does things they probably shouldn't across all of the
sectors of our society, and.

Speaker 2 (07:22):
Doesn't mean just finally, sorry, does it Does it mean
that you've got all of these groups? You know, there's
lovely people around the country who are raising funds to
get their town hall or their opera house, or their
or their church built, you know, brought up to earthquake
strengthening standards. They're about halfway to their fundraising goal. All

(07:44):
of a sudden, they're going to have this windfall that
they can that they can spend, don't they.

Speaker 3 (07:49):
Well, I would put it to a different way. What
they might have been halfway to their goal of having
to retrofit the whole building. Now they'll probably have exactly
the right amount of money to secure the front facade
or to do the proportionate retro fat which means that
the building is now deemed safe or fit for purpose.
So I think it's great that it's probably a more proportionate,
more nuanced, you know, and so these buildings bere to

(08:13):
be brought back to life quicker and with more certainty.

Speaker 2 (08:17):
Lovely always good to talk, Hammit. I really appreciate your expertise.
Homush Firth, director of Mount Hobson Group, specialist urban planning
and resource management consultancy.

Speaker 1 (08:26):
For more from Kerry Wood and mornings. Listen live to
News Talks at B from nine am weekdays, or follow
the podcast on iHeartRadio