People who worked in the Pyne Gould building in Christchurch became concerned about cracks in the walls after the first Christchurch earthquake but were told it was safe, the Canterbury Earthquakes Royal Commission into building failure heard last week.

Although cracks appeared after the first earthquake on September 4, people who returned to work after the Boxing Day quake said the cracks had widened and they became worried about the building’s safety because it creaked and shook more with each aftershock.

The hearing was told structural engineers had inspected the building on September 7 and 16, October 15 and in mid-January.

The building collapsed in the February 22 earthquake and 18 people were killed.

Hearings into the collapse of buildings that led to loss of life will continue into next year. 

Apart from counsel assisting the royal commission, lawyers are appearing for building owner Stephen Collins, Christchurch City Council, property manager NAI Harcourts, engineering firm Holmes Consulting and Pyne Gould Corporation.

The hearing was told the Pyne Gould building was built in 1963 to the standards of the time and had been reinforced since to a standard where it could withstand 30-40% of a building constructed to the current code.

An engineer’s report from 2007 had said the building had a severe seismicity weakness and was earthquake-prone.

Property manager Howard Buchanan said he ordered inspections of the building and would have expected the engineers to tell him if detailed investigation was needed.

Mr Buchanan said all New Zealand faces a massive task to determine the status of earthquake-prone buildings.

Harcourts and the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority are now undertaking full inspections on any multi-storey buildings and some lower level buildings “to find out where they sit in terms of the earthquake codes, which are changing”.

The process took more than eight weeks, so after the September quake “if you’d wanted every building that was damaged less than 1% to be inspected and analysed, you pretty much would have had to close Christchurch for six months, turn the lights off, come back, because it simply wasn’t the engineering resource available to analyse those buildings,” Mr Buchanan said.

“Most of those reports if they had been required would take anywhere from four to 10 weeks.”