The owner of a Christchurch building which collapsed in the February earthquake killing 18 people says he was unaware it was a risk.
A Royal Commission is conducting a series of hearings on the Canterbury earthquakes which began with a 7.1-magnitude tremor on 4 September last year.
This phase of the inquiry deals with an investigation into the Pyne Gould Corporation building and why it collapsed in the 6.3-magnitude quake on 22 February.
The five-storey building in central Christchurch was built in the 1960s and considered to be earthquake-prone, given that it did not meet the modern building code standards.
On Tuesday, the Christchurch City Council told the hearing that in about 2005 or 2006, it amended the building's land information memorandum (LIM) report to show it was considered a risk as it was built before 1976.
Under cross-examination on Monday, the building's owner, Stephen Collins, said he was not aware of that report. On Tuesday, PGC company secretary and former building owner Colin Hair also said he did not know about it.
Mr Hair said he and Mr Collins were given several assurances following the September quake that the building was safe to occupy and trusted that this was the case.
Harcourts, the building's property manager, told the hearing on Tuesday it contracted engineers to carry out assessments on the building, which showed it had only suffered superficial damage in the September quake.
Council questioned about PGC assessment
The Christchurch City Council was questioned about the assessment of the Pyne Gould Corporation building following the September quake and why it was given a green sticker.
Lawyers questioned whether information that the PGC building was considered to be quake-prone was passed on to an emergency assessment team which checked the building from the outside the day after this quake.
The council said the team would have been aware of the building's age.
Lawyer Marcus Elliot asked if more thorough assessments should have been carried out on known quake-prone buildings.
But Steve McCarthy, the council's environmental policy and approvals manager, said the focus was on buildings with a high risk of collapse.
Mr McCarthy said the council's expectations were that owners were responsible for the interpretation of the green sticker.
"Our expectation was that the building owner and the engineer would observe what it says on this, which is to get further engineering checks made of the building."
