This article was first published by RNZ
Marae are asking to be included in a stocktake of earthquake-prone buildings instead of councils’ ad hoc approach.
The government is reviewing its earthquake-prone building regulations, and Massey University professor Regan Potangaroa said marae should be considered.
Under the rules, which were introduced in 2017, a building is considered earthquake-prone if it falls below 34 percent of the New Building Standard.
Nearly 500 of the deadlines were set in the next four years. But owners have been given four extra years to fix their buildings while the review took place.
But councils across the country have approached the task of identifying potentially earthquake-prone buildings differently, particularly marae, Potangaroa said.
At Te Ore Ore Marae near Masterton, iwi were notified in 2017 that the single-storey, timber frame wharenui was potentially earthquake-prone.
Trustee Piri Te Tau was unclear about the marae’s current status.
“I think we’ve been designated as ‘prone’, but I haven’t actually seen anything in black and white.”
Council now said the the notice was issued in error, but the trustees never received a retraction.
“They were just letting sleeping dogs lie, as it were,” Potangaroa said.
“But you have to ask, ‘How can that be when you’re talking about a significant cultural building such as Te Ore Ore Marae?’.”
Contradictorily, at Wellington’s Te Kainga Catholic Marae, two engineering assessments commissioned by the archdiocese found the building did not meet the New Building Standard.
But it was not listed on the national earthquake-prone building register and was not required to display a warning notice to visitors.
The marae occupies a 1950s former RSA building owned by the church in Kilbirnie.
It had proactively limited use of the marae and stopped overnight stays, Te Kainga Catholic Marae trustees chair Boy Thompson said.
“That was a decision that we made, because we couldn’t handle it if someone got tragically hurt in the building under our watch.”
Council asks marae for safety report
A Wellington City Council spokesperson said the marae did not fall within the scope of buildings that they assessed under the regulations.
“But if an owner identifies their building as less than 34 percent, they can provide the assessment information to council and we will issue an earthquake-prone building notice in line with the legislation,” they said.
According to Potangaroa, this ad hoc approach was not giving iwi the confidence and certainty they need that marae buildings were safe.
The government should consider creating a “special class” for marae in its upcoming review, he said - not to exempt them from the requirements, but to streamline the processes.
In April, the government said it would bring forward the scheduled review to take place in 2024.
“A lot of these marae don’t have any money, they exist on a koha basis,” Potangaroa said.
“We’re very keen to see a special class made so that lessons learned can be applied across iwi.”
For traditionally-built marae, this could include allowing engineers to adopt a standardised report, he said, reducing the financial burden of obtaining engineering assessments, which could cost up to $30,000.
“For most traditionally-built marae, the building typology is effectively the same.”
Ideally, those iwi with earthquake-prone marae could then adopt a community-driven process. It is something Potangaroa has advocated for since participating in seismic strengthening work at the Temple at Ratana Pā in the 1990s, and now in his work for the government-funded Resilience to Nature’s Challenges National Science Challenge programme.
“I call it whānau-isation. We break it down into projects or work packages that the people on the marae can actually organise themselves to do,” Potangaroa said.
“At Te Kainga marae we’re talking about taking out the brick infill walls because it’s those heavy materials that are driving the earthquake load.
“But if we replace those walls with timber, we quickly raise the earthquake rating of the building.”
Thompson said it would be easier if these sorts of community-driven processes were endorsed and backed by the government.
By Emma Ricketts of RNZ