When will the big one hit Mid Canterbury?

And when the ground does shake, how will our buildings and the district’s infrastructure stand up to it?

The focus is on earthquake-prone buildings at the Ashburton District Council at the moment as the shape of the policy required under the Building Act 2004 is debated.

It is not just earthquake prone buildings that are in the spotlight — the policy is also required to contain rules regarding dangerous and unsanitary buildings.

The council has decided to produce a paper for members of the public to discuss and comment on. It will outline all the issues involved and give options for dealing with them.

Because of a guideline in the legislation to have a policy in place by May the paper will be made available as soon as possible, with a deadline of late February to have your comments returned to the Council.

To that point the process is an informal one, aimed at gathering opinions and information from the public and informing building owners of what the council will be attempting to do.

Information gathered will be used to assist with drawing up the policy, which will then go through a formal consultative process.

In a recent report Environmental Services Manager John McKenzie said the earthquake risk in Ashburton was obviously different to that in larger cities, which was why the Government had asked each district to consider local factors when drawing up their policies.

The two aspects to be considered initially were the probability and severity of an earthquake and the effects of an earthquake on life and property.  A Council report states that the presence of the Alpine Fault suggested an 85% chance of a significant earthquake in the next 100 years, well within the future life of most buildings.

All buildings other than small residential buildings are affected by the Act’s provisions. Age, type of construction, occupancy & strategic value were taken as key indicators. There were three categories of buildings to be considered — those providing essential facilities to the community, public and commercial buildings and heritage buildings.

Heritage buildings fell into two groups — those listed in the district plan and those of cultural significance but not listed. Because of their age and construction they could be considered to be particularly earthquake prone, but the risk to life, health and other structures from them could be lower.

The council had the option of implementing a passive approach to heritage buildings based on the perceived level of risk, but the community may expect the same level of safety as it expected in other buildings.

Demolition could be a cheaper option than strengthening for owners of some heritage buildings, but the paper asks if the Ashburton community would be prepared to accept their loss to improve safety.