The Government is ditching the New Building Standard ratings as part of its plans for a "refocused" earthquake-prone building system.
Since 2017 earthquake-prone buildings have been given ratings expressed as a percentage of the New Building Standard (NBS).
The ratings “mean the degree to which the building, or part, meets the seismic performance requirements of the Building Code that relate to how a building is likely to perform in an earthquake and that would be used to design a new building on the same site as at 1 July 2017”.
Figures from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) in 2024 suggest there are over 7200 earthquake-prone buildings. Of those, about 1900 have been strengthened or demolished (or are no longer considered earthquake-prone by authorities) and about 5300 buildings are yet to be fixed.
A building or part of a building is considered earthquake-prone if, in a moderate earthquake, it may collapse, causing injury or death or damage to another property.
Government says it's removing NBS ratings
Building and Construction Minister Chris Penk shared the changes on Monday afternoon, saying the Government is removing the NBS ratings currently used by engineers to determine whether a property is earthquake-prone.
“The NBS rates how an existing building is expected to perform in an earthquake compared to a new building, and has proven too broad and inconsistent,” Penk says.
“A building’s overall risk status is determined by its weakest part, meaning even a small defect can result in an entire building being classified as earthquake-prone.”
Penk says “the new earthquake-prone building (EPB) system will capture only buildings that pose a genuine risk to human life in medium and high seismic zones”.
“This category includes concrete buildings three storeys or higher, and those constructed with unreinforced masonry.”
Auckland, Northland and the Chatham Islands would be removed from the system entirely as Penk says this reflects the low seismic risk in those areas.
“Unreinforced masonry buildings under three storeys in small and rural towns will no longer require remediation or warning notices, but owners must secure the façade before the building can be removed from the earthquake-prone register.”
Penk says this change recognises "the risk of a façade falling on a pedestrian is simply lower in communities with fewer than 10,000 residents than it is in larger urban centres, because there are fewer people on the streets".
For buildings that still require some remediation, Penk says the Government is removing the rule that owners must upgrade fire safety and disability access at the same time as earthquake strengthening.
Local councils would also be given the authority to grant extensions to remediation deadlines of up to 15 years. Penk says this gives building owners time to secure funding, plan and carry out any major work that’s still required.
Ministers would also be looking at making changes to resource management and heritage rules.
“This refocused earthquake-prone building system is expected to save New Zealanders more than $8.2 billion in remediation and demolition costs.”
These changes come after a review in June 2024.
Penk says the review recognised the need for “a fairer balance between costs and the real risks buildings pose, so that strengthening work is achievable.”
‘Current system lacks clarity’
The review, led by MBIE, aimed to ensure seismic risk in these types of buildings was being “managed effectively and in a workable, proportionate way”.
At the time, Penk said the system was not working as well as it could and the reality was many buildings were not getting fixed.
“Many building owners are unable to meet deadlines due to high remediation costs and an excessive layering of regulations,” Penk said.
“The current system lacks clarity, and some owners are stuck in impossible situations, where they can’t move forward with the remediation but equally struggle to sell and move on with their lives.”
“Buildings sitting empty and abandoned for months, or, in many cases, years is bad for everyone. Empty, derelict buildings can be dangerous, but they are also a handbrake on growth and development and can suck the life out of a town or city," he said.
The earthquake-prone building legislation was originally put in place by the then National-led Government in 2016.
'Step in the right direction'
Property Council New Zealand chief executive Leonie Freeman welcomed the changes, saying: “The old regime was like forcing every car to replace its engine every 10 years, regardless of condition."
"The new approach inspects each car on its age and state of repair, fixing only what needs attention. It’s smarter, it’s fairer, and it focuses on genuine life-safety risks.”
Freeman says "many owners faced bills in the millions, with no clear pathway forward. Instead of strengthening, buildings were abandoned, becoming derelict and putting communities at greater risk".
“We’ve long called for seismic standards that are workable, proportionate, and focused on real risk. Today’s announcement is a step in the right direction.”
3 Comments
If the Canterbury 2010/11 series are any indicator, many of the unfortunate fatalities might have been avoided if suspect commercial buildings had not been allowed to be re-occupied after the first (Greendale) event and if some of the weakened facades had been taken down immediately.Those of us that experienced the frightening power of those quakes are aware, and not by choice, that they are a law unto themselves in terms of dealing out destruction all of which, is highly unpredictable.
Too true Foxy, but numerous ChCh buildings that retained their structural integrity envelope were later condemned or faced hugely expensive remediation to bring them up to the magical NBS compliance number, despite them having preserved the lives of those within. The ministers statement correctly points out that it was often a minor structural component that was non compliant with current standard yet would likely still perform satisfactorily in a major shake. Too many sound buildings were unnecessarily lost in my view. Insurance underwriters will progressively sort this issue by rendering genuinely EQ prone buildings uninsurable and subjecting others to harsher terms. I'm uneasy though about exempting unreinforced masonry up to three floors in small centres. Seddon, Westport, Masterton ?? The view that because there is low population density small numbers will be injured or killed feels a tad callous.
Aye the old pendulum only stays in the middle of things when it has no power. There was not enough precaution after the first event, hence the tragedies of CTV & PGG building for example.But after that it went to extremes the other way. As a matter of interest did you note that a vacant section on Clifton Hill sold recently for over $1.2mill. Now at the time this property was well illustrated in the media. A grand old villa in a state of collapse and a deep chasm running through the land and right across the road in front. Subsequently the land was categorised as “Red” a hazard of “the highest level of risk to life safety.” Now seeing as how nothing has been done other than filling in the chasm, what exactly has changed, why does the hazard no longer exist or are the authorities now saying it never existed in the first place?
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.