PGC building inspector stands by his decisions

The collapsed Pyne Gould Corp building on Cambridge Terrace. Photo / Geoff Sloan

An engineer who inspected the Pyne Gould Corporation (PGC) building after the magnitude 7.1 September 4 earthquake and ruled it "safe to occupy" on three separate occasions, stood by his decision today.

Workers inside the 40-year-old PGC building had raised fears over its safety after finding cracks in its columns and a main load-bearing wall after the September shake.

It was inspected five times and was deemed safe on each occasion before the fatal February 22 quake, which resulted in its collapse and the deaths of 18 people.

Structural engineer Mark Whiteside personally checked the five-storey building three times.

Today, at the latest phase of the Royal Commission hearings into the Canterbury earthquakes, which is focusing solely on the collapse of the PGC building in the centre of Christchurch, Mr Whiteside faced a stern grilling from Marcus Elliott, lawyer assisting the commission.

Mr Elliott quizzed the engineer, who was working for Holmes Consulting Group, on why he didn't carry out a more detailed inspection of the building.

Whiteside said his remit was to carry out a basic visual inspection of the building, or Level 2 examination.

He admitted to having not checked previous reports carried out on the building by his own employers, Holmes Consulting, which highlighted structural weaknesses and featured modelled performances of the building.

Whiteside said his own "visual" checks meant he was satisfied he did not have to recommend a more detailed report, which would have closed the building and paved the way for more "invasive" inspections.

He argued that his own observations of cracks in the building's walls had not amounted to a "significantly diminished building capacity."

Mr Elliott asked whether during Mr Whiteside's first inspection on September 7 he carried out his duties without information from GNS Science, reference to building plans or any previous reports held on Holmes Consulting Group's file, and without invasive testing of the sheer core, or any understanding of the extent of reinforcing in the sheer core.

"Is that right?" the bewildered lawyer inquired.

"That would be correct, yes," the engineer replied.

Mr Elliott asked that given those "deficiencies in information," did he still think it was "open to say that it was OK to occupy structurally?"

Whiteside said: "In the scope of what we were doing, which was an initial assessment to see if the building had any diminished capacity, I believe it was."

Tenants and workers inside the PGC building had discovered cracks "which caused concern and led them to press for another report after the Boxing Day 4.9-magnitude quake. But again, Whiteside told them it was "green stickered" and safe to occupy.

The hearing continues.