The Government has announced proposed changes to the rules around the need to assess, and if necessary, strengthen potentially earthquake prone buildings.
In areas that are considered low risk for earthquakes, such as Auckland, owners will have 15 years to assess their buildings and 35 five years to strengthen them, meaning the work may not be completed for 50 years.
However that extended timeframe to undertake the work will not alleviate the pressure landlords are facing from tenants who are increasingly demanding high seismic ratings for their premises.
The latest Tenant Earthquake Risk Assessment (TERA) Survey undertaken by Colliers International, found that few tenants would be happy to rent premises in a building with a seismic rating that was less than 33% of New Building Standard (NBS), with 41% of respondents saying a rating between 33% and 67% would be acceptable and 48% saying a rating above 67% would be acceptable.
Colliers national research manager Chris Dibble (pictured), said while the mandatory timeframes for strengthening buildings had been extended in low risk regions, rectifying the issue would remain a priority for landlords.
"A publicly available register and website will be set up and buildings will be required to have notices at their entrance stating if they are below the minimum [seismic] standard," he said.
It is envisaged that that buildings with a seismic rating of 20% of New Building Standard or lower will have to have a red notice at their entrance, and buildings with a rating between 21% and 34% of New Building Standard will have an orange notice.
"The onus will then fall on the tenant to make the decision on what they feel is appropriate," Dibble said.
"But given the results of our survey, where only 9% say below 34% on NBS is OK, neither sticker colour seems to be a preferable option."
So although some building owners may have been given up to 50 years to undertake strengthening work, failure to get the work done promptly could leave them with a greatly diminished pool of potential tenants when their space becomes vacant, which could also impact on the rents they might achieve.
The survey also found that nearly 60% of respondents said they would not be prepared to pay more rent to occupy a building with a higher seismic rating.
However just over 10% said they would be required to pay an extra $11-$15 per square metre for a higher rated building.
To read the full survey results, click on the following link:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our free Property email newsletter brings you all the stories about residential and commercial property and the forces that move these huge markets. Sign up here.
To subscribe to our Property newsletter, enter your email address here. It's free.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 Comments
As someone who had a tilt slab building fall over about 30 seconds after he walked out of it in the second Christchurch earthquake, I would suggest that insisting that a rented/leased building meets the highest building and earthquake code standards is perfectly bloody reasonable, and not something they should be expected to pay more for! Anything that doesn't should be condemned immediately.
They say down here that Auckland is it's own little world, well this proves that Aucklanders live in their own little world too! You think we were classified as high risk before we get smashed to pieces down here? How many people died?! How many buildings fell over?!
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.