he 2016 Building (Earthquake Prone Building) Amendment Act aims to improve the system for managing earthquake-prone buildings. The proposed changes to the Act were precipitated by the Canterbury earthquakes, and the need to improve the seismic safety of New Zealand’s building stock. However, the Act has significant ramifications for territorial authorities, organisations and individuals in small New Zealand towns, since assessing and repairing heritage buildings poses a major cost to districts with low populations and poor rental returns on commercial buildings.
In 2016, the Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Act 2016 was introduced to address the issue of seismic vulnerability amongst existing buildings in Aotearoa New Zealand. This Act introduced a mandatory scheme to remediate buildings deemed particularly vulnerable to seismic hazard, as recommended by the 2012 Royal Commission into the Canterbury earthquake sequence of 2010–2011. This Earthquake-prone Building (EPB) framework is unusual internationally for the mandatory obligations that it introduces. This article explores and critiques the operation of the scheme in practice through an examination of its implementation provisions and the experiences of more recent seismic events (confirmed by engineering research). This analysis leads to the conclusion that the operation of the current scheme and particularly the application of the concept of EPB vulnerability excludes large numbers of (primarily urban) buildings which pose a significant risk in the event of a significant (but expected) seismic event. As a result, the EPB scheme fails to achieve its goals and instead may create a false impression that it does so
