Increased burden on building owners Building owners served with an EPB notice are required to provide an engineering assessment to their territorial authority within 12 months. Many building owners will lack the skills or knowledge to deal with the complexities of the engineering and bureaucratic processes involved in undertaking this assessment and then following the process to have the building upgraded. In the event an owner fails to provide an assessment or notifies the territorial authority that they do not intend to provide an assessment, the territorial authority will proceed as if the building was determined to be earthquake-prone, which will obviously have very serious implications. Consequently, some form of support or guidance will be needed to ensure that inexperienced building owners are not prejudiced against. Industry capacity The Amendment Act requirements will place significant pressure on the engineering industry, given the increased assessments and strengthening requirements, combined with stricter timeframes. Doubts exist as to whether there will be a sufficient number of skilled engineers available to achieve the assessment and strengthening requirements within these timeframes. Private funding for public good The Amendment Act has the aim of protecting the public from harm caused by earthquake-prone buildings. However, the cost of that public good will fall primarily at the feet of the building owners, which many building owners have objected to. We would not be surprised to see building owners, despite the terms of the Amendment Act, pushing for central and local government contributions to their strengthening obligations, so that the public safety aims of the Amendment Act can be realised. Conclusion The amendments to the Building Act raise a number of issues for territorial authorities, building owners, building users and the public. A balance has been struck between the protection of citizens from earthquake-prone buildings, the costs involved with strengthening or demolishing buildings to ensure they are no longer earthquake-prone, and the protection of New Zealand's built heritage. However, the new structure is likely to impose additional costs on building owners and additional pressure on territorial authorities to comply with timeframes. The full extent of the new provisions will be felt in high seismic risk areas where timeframes have been halved for both territorial authorities and building owners.
Endnotes 1. by Anton Trixl, Senior Associate, and Nina Harland, Law Clerk, Anderson Lloyd, Auckland 2. [2014] NZSC 193 3. 2533825