Request a Consultation

Author: Mike Hoeft

  • %NBS dies in late 2026. Your lease clauses don’t.

    %NBS dies in late 2026. Your lease clauses don’t.

    %NBS dies in late 2026. Your lease clauses don’t.

    Every Auckland commercial lease signed in the last decade contains a clause that’s about to point at nothing.

    The earthquake-prone building reform working through Parliament — the Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Bill, introduced in December 2025 with enactment expected late 2026 — does something most market commentary has glossed. It removes Auckland from the EPB system entirely. When it does, the %NBS metric and the statutory earthquake-prone classification stop existing under the Building Act. The contracts that reference them don’t.

    Auckland’s quiet exclusion

    The Minister’s framing has been about cost savings. Around 2,900 buildings nationally lose their EPB status. Only 80 or so are expected to need full retrofit under the new regime. Government estimates put the saved spend at $8.2 billion. Those are the numbers that ran.

    The line that didn’t run as widely: “Buildings in Auckland, Northland and the Chatham Islands will be removed from the system entirely and will not require remediation, reflecting the lower seismic risk in these regions.”

    The new risk-based regime applies to concrete buildings of three storeys or more, and to unreinforced masonry buildings, in medium and high seismic hazard zones. Auckland is none of those. On enactment day, an Auckland building currently sitting on the EPB Register at 20% NBS is no longer earthquake-prone under the Building Act. No deadline. No register entry. No statutory remediation obligation.

    The market response will lag the legislation. The contract response shouldn’t.

    Orphaned, not void

    %NBS and the EPB classification are statutory constructs. The leases, agreements to lease, and sale and purchase agreements that reference them are private contracts. Repealing the statute doesn’t void the contract. It removes the reference point.

    A landlord warranty that “the Building is no less than 67% NBS” still binds. The number it points to still exists as an engineering output. What changed is that the legislative framework giving it a standard methodology and a public register has gone. Same building, two different engineers, two different numbers. That variance existed under the old regime. It gets worse without it.

    A clause that triggers abatement “if the Building is classified as earthquake-prone” still binds — but the classification it depends on can no longer occur in Auckland. The trigger becomes mechanically impossible to pull. Unworkable clauses get fought over.

    Five clause types worth auditing

    Read every active commercial lease, ATL and SPA on your stack against these:

    1. Landlord seismic warranties. Stated %NBS at handover, sometimes with an obligation to maintain. The warranty binds but loses its public assessment framework.

    2. Tenant break rights tied to EPB status. Common in leases written between 2017 and 2022. In Auckland these go dormant. Retire them or re-anchor them.

    3. Rent abatement triggers. Abatement if the building is closed, vacated or remediated under the EPB regime. In Auckland the triggering event becomes legally impossible — which is not the same as the underlying risk being gone.

    4. Remediation cost allocation and OPEX recovery. Existing leases often allocate EPB strengthening costs between landlord and tenant. The work itself may still occur, driven by lender, insurer or HSWA pressure, but the legal label has changed.

    5. Make-good and reinstatement standards. Anything that references %NBS as a return-condition benchmark. Quiet, but it bites at lease end.

    Most documents need a clarifying side letter or variation, not a fresh draft. The work is identifying which documents need which.

    The view that nothing really changes

    There’s a reasonable read that goes the other way. Banks still use %NBS as a private credit metric and will keep doing so after enactment. Insurers still underwrite seismic risk on their own terms. The Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 sits beside the Building Act, not under it, and a PCBU still owes a duty to manage seismic risk regardless of what the Building Act says. So %NBS doesn’t really disappear — it loses statutory force and continues life as a private benchmark. On that view, the contract orphaning is a paper problem the parties will quietly fix by treating %NBS as a continued private reference.

    Most of that is right. None of it solves the orphaning.

    The statutory regime gave %NBS three things: a standard assessment methodology, a public register, and a shared interpretation of what counted as quake-prone. All three disappear. What persists is the number an engineer writes on a report, without the framework that made two engineers likely to write the same number. The variance was always going to bite. The question is which party’s drafting picks up the slack, and the answer is whoever moves first.

    Vary now, value later

    Two practical sequencing calls.

    First, run the contract clean-up before enactment, not after. Variations agreed under the current regime are easier to negotiate — both sides can see where the regime is headed. After enactment, the drafting gets fought against a missing reference point and a counterparty with leverage they didn’t have last year.

    Second, hold off running a fresh valuation case until enactment is closer to certain. The bill still has to clear Select Committee, second reading, committee of the whole and Royal Assent. Treating late-2026 reform as priced today is premature. Treating it as priced never is the other mistake.

    The owners who repaper before late 2026 set the precedent for what a post-EPB Auckland lease looks like. The owners who wait inherit someone else’s drafting.

    —

    *Commentary on a proposed bill currently before Select Committee. Not legal advice. Specific contract clauses should be reviewed with your lawyer.*

  • Face rent vs effective rent: why the gap widens

    Face rent vs effective rent: why the gap widens

    Face rent vs effective rent: why the gap widens

    Face rent is the number on the cover sheet. Effective rent is face rent minus the amortised value of every incentive — rent-free months, fit-out contributions, capped opex — spread across the term.

    Year one of a ten-year lease, the two sit close. By year ten, they’ve drifted further apart than most tenants realised they would. Three things drive the divergence.

    Escalations compound face, not effective

    Most Auckland leases run fixed reviews of 2–3% per annum, with market reviews at year four and year seven. Those escalations stack on the face number. Effective rent, calculated against the original incentive package, doesn’t move.

    A face rent of $400/m² with 2.5% annual escalations reaches roughly $510/m² by year ten. The effective rent — calculated against nine months rent-free and a $200/m² fit-out contribution on a ten-year term — sits around $350/m². The gap has widened to $160/m² without anyone touching the lease.

    Market reviews reference face

    The valuer running the year-seven market review pulls comparables. Those comparables are face rents from recent deals. Effective rent doesn’t show up on the comparable schedule. The tenant inherits the market’s face number, not the market’s effective.

    The renewal floor is face

    At expiry, the landlord’s opening position is the current face rent. The tenant who only tracked the headline number through the term is negotiating from a base that’s drifted 25–30% above where the economics actually sit.

    Track effective rent quarterly. The headline number isn’t the one that bites you.

  • Face rent is the wrong number

    Face rent is the wrong number

    Face rent is the wrong number

    Most lease deals get reported on face rent. It’s the number on the cover sheet, the number that shows up in market evidence, the number agents quote when they’re benchmarking. It’s also, in a market with heavy incentives, close to fiction.

    Take a five-year deal at $400/sqm face. Twelve months rent-free. $150/sqm fit-out contribution. On paper, that’s $400. On the lease NPV, it’s closer to $310. Three months later, when someone uses the $400 as evidence on the building next door, the error compounds.

    This matters in three places.

    The first is rent reviews. Market evidence is collected on face. If you’re the tenant in a CPI-or-market clause and your landlord’s valuer is pricing comparables at headline, you’re paying for incentives that other tenants got and you didn’t.

    The second is investment sales. A buyer pricing a cap rate against $400/sqm passing income is paying for income that isn’t really there. The vendor knows. The agent knows. The valuer should know.

    The third is the rent roll itself. Owners who report on face rent across a portfolio are reporting on an income line that doesn’t survive the next renewal.

    Effective rent is harder to calculate. It’s also the only number that means anything. If you’re signing, renewing, valuing, or buying, ask for it. If nobody can produce it, that tells you something too.

  • Lease renewal, lease extension, break clause – three words that aren’t synonyms

    Lease renewal, lease extension, break clause – three words that aren’t synonyms

    If you’ve been told you missed your renewal window, you’re stuck – that’s not the law.

    Three lease mechanisms get used interchangeably by tenants, landlords, agents in a hurry, and the occasional lawyer who should know better. They are not the same thing. The difference between them can be the difference between a routine renegotiation and a six-figure problem you didn’t see coming.

    Here is what each one actually does, why the distinction has commercial consequences, and the statutory relief most tenants don’t know exists.

    Extension vs renewal – the real distinction

    An extension continues the existing lease. Same document, same clauses, same fit-out clock, same make-good obligation. The lease just runs longer. If the extension is built into the original lease as a contractual right, it triggers like any other clause – including any rent review mechanism the extension clause references.

    A renewal renews the lease under the renewal mechanism in the original lease. A new term commences, rent resets per the renewal clause – typically to market subject to whatever ratchet, CPI cap, or arbitration mechanism applies – and the renewal-rights count steps down by one.

    Both can be contractual. Both can be negotiated. The difference is what happens to the terms when the new period begins.

    This sounds academic until you are in the middle of a refinance and the bank wants to know your term certain. A right of renewal that has not been exercised counts for nothing. A signed extension counts in full. Same physical lease, two different bank conversations.

    Why the distinction has commercial consequences

    WALT. Weighted average lease term, the number every commercial valuer and every institutional buyer looks at first, is calculated on signed term. Unexercised renewals do not count. Signed extensions do. A landlord pushing for an extension before going to market is usually making a WALT decision. It can be relational too: the tenant may want the additional tenure. But the timing is often the giveaway.

    Rent review timing. Renewals typically – though not always – carry a market review at the commencement of the new term. That is the ADLS standard, and where the clause specifies a review, it fires on the renewal date whether anyone wants it to or not. Extensions do not have a commencement in the same sense, because they continue the existing lease rather than starting a new term. Whether an extension triggers a review depends on how the extension clause is drafted. Tenants who assume an extension is simply keep going can be caught out if the extension clause was drafted to trigger a review on the extension date.

    Make-good and yielding up. Make-good crystallises against the commencement date of the current term – either the original commencement, or, where a renewal has occurred, the renewal date that started the current term. An extension does not create a new commencement, so it does not shift the make-good reference point. Assuming an extension resets the make-good clock is a common mistake and can lead to a surprise bill at end of term. One exception: if a mid-term refurbishment has been carried out and the lease has been varied at that point to deal with fit-out ownership and make-good obligations, the variation itself can reset or rework the make-good baseline. That is a deal-specific outcome driven by what the parties documented, not the date mechanic.

    Surviving renewal rights. Take a tenant on a six-plus-three-plus-three lease – six-year initial term with two three-year rights of renewal. At year three the tenant wants certainty out to year nine. Renewing early consumes one of the two renewal rights: the lease runs to year nine, but only one renewal right is left, so the total potential occupation is twelve years. A deed of extension to year nine, by contrast, leaves both renewal rights intact, taking total potential occupation to fifteen years. Same nine years of certainty either way – three years of option value either kept or given up, depending on which mechanism is used.

    Break clauses – the easy part to misuse

    A break clause is a contractual right, almost always the tenant’s and occasionally mutual, to terminate the lease early at a specified date.

    The mechanics are simple. The conditions usually are not. A typical break clause requires notice within a fixed window, payment of any break fee, full compliance with covenants, vacant possession, and no arrears. UK case law is full of break notices that failed on technicalities – carpets not replaced, signage not removed, a few hundred pounds of unpaid service charge.

    NZ leases are increasingly importing UK-style break clauses, particularly in larger institutional deals and longer corporate occupier leases. If you have one, treat the conditions like a checklist with a deadline. Most break failures happen because someone assumed substantial compliance was enough. It is not.

    The relief tenants don’t know about

    This is the part most tenants do not get told.

    Under the Property Law Act 2007, sections 261 and 264, a tenant whose landlord refuses to renew can apply to the Court for relief. The Court can order the landlord to enter into the renewal, despite a missed notice date or even a substantive breach.

    The Court has very broad discretion and a strong tendency to grant relief where the breach is not subsisting and substantial and can be quickly remedied. Factors weighed include why the tenant failed to give timely notice, whether landlord conduct contributed to the failure, the tenant’s overall compliance history, prejudice to each side, the landlord’s motivations for refusing, and third-party interests like incoming tenants or purchasers.

    NZ Courts have granted relief even where the tenant deliberately withheld notice trying to negotiate better terms. In Wendco (NZ) Ltd v LJCTB Trustees Ltd [2017] NZHC 2668 – the Wendy’s NZ franchise operator – the High Court ordered a renewal despite the tenant intentionally delaying notice to seek a rent reduction. The Court weighed factors including the potential loss of staff employment and Wendco’s substantial fit-out investment.

    The underlying principle is that landlords should not be able to take commercial advantage of an inadvertent mistake where refusal would be disproportionate. That said, the principle is not a free pass. A subsequent High Court decision signalled that without comparable mitigating factors – employment impact, sunk fit-out cost, disproportionate harm – courts may be less sympathetic where the sole reason for withholding notice was negotiating leverage. The relief is available. The outcome is fact-dependent.

    There is one hard deadline. The tenant must apply to the Court within three months of the landlord’s communication refusing to renew. Miss that and the Court cannot help. Pay close attention to the date on the landlord’s refusal letter.

    This relief is available even when the lease has expired and the tenant is holding over on a month-to-month periodic tenancy. An unexercised renewal right can be revived when the landlord moves to terminate.

    What this means in practice

    If you are a tenant who has missed a renewal notice, you have not necessarily lost the site. Remedy any breach, get advice, and move within the three-month window. Time is the thing that kills these claims, not the underlying breach.

    If you are a landlord and the tenant missed their notice or has been in breach, do not assume you can re-let or sell with vacant possession. The Court can still require you to renew. Get advice before you list, sign a new tenant, or commit to a buyer who expects vacant possession.

    If you are a developer or investor underwriting a deal with leased income, ask whether any of the income depends on unexercised renewal rights and whether those rights have notice deadlines coming up that could be relevant to your hold period. WALT is the easy number. The option mechanics behind it are the real story.

    Honest caveats

    This piece is general guidance, not specific legal advice. The PLA relief framework is broad but discretionary – outcomes turn on the specific facts, the wording of your lease, and the conduct of both sides. ADLS Sixth Edition leases have particular renewal mechanics that are not universal across all NZ commercial leases. Bespoke and older leases vary.

    If you are sitting on a real renewal, extension, or break issue, the framework above is a starting point, not a substitute for advice from someone who has read your lease.

    When to get help

    The fastest way to lose money on a commercial lease is to assume the words mean what they sound like in everyday English. They do not.

    If you are looking at a renewal, extension, break clause, or a refused renewal, you can email me at mike@klug.co.nz.

  • A Data-Driven Approach to Commercial Property Decisions in Auckland & NZ

    A Data-Driven Approach to Commercial Property Decisions in Auckland & NZ

    Commercial Property Advisory • Market Analysis • Strategy

    Data-driven commercial property decisions require separating signal from noise. Commercial property decisions are rarely binary. They sit at the intersection of quantitative analysis, qualitative insight, and market experience.

    Making data-driven commercial property decisions requires separating signal from noise. These decisions sit at the intersection of cash flow, risk, tenant demand, capital markets, and timing. In Auckland and across New Zealand, that intersection is shifting quickly—making it essential to test every decision against measurable assumptions.

    Auckland skyline with Sky Tower and harbour

    At Klug, we apply a disciplined, evidence-based process to help investors, owners, and occupiers make confident decisions—whether you’re acquiring, leasing, repositioning, refinancing, or planning a development pathway.

    The 6 questions we use to pressure-test data-driven commercial property decisions

    1) What problem are we solving?

    Is the goal yield, long-term growth, risk reduction, occupancy stability, or operational efficiency? Clear objectives prevent “good deals” from becoming poor outcomes.

    2) What does the market actually support?

    We anchor decisions in comparable evidence, leasing velocity, incentives, vacancy, and tenant demand—not headlines. Market analysis should be specific to the asset type, location, and tenant profile.

    3) What are the cash flows under realistic assumptions?

    Underwriting should model rent, downtime, incentives, capex, opex, and funding costs. The goal is to understand sensitivity—what happens if rates move, a tenant exits, or incentives rise?

    4) Where are the hidden risks?

    Lease structures, make-good obligations, seismic/insurance considerations, planning constraints, and deferred maintenance can change the economics materially. We look for risks that don’t show up in the headline yield.

    5) What’s the negotiation strategy?

    Whether it’s tenant representation or landlord representation, outcomes often come down to preparation: evidence, alternatives, timing, and a clear walk-away position.

    6) How will we measure success?

    Define the metrics upfront—effective rent, IRR, vacancy reduction, capex efficiency, covenant strength, or portfolio risk profile—so the decision can be evaluated objectively over time.

    Where Klug adds value in data-driven commercial property decisions

    • Commercial leasing advisory to improve lease terms, reduce incentives, and protect flexibility.
    • Property acquisition advisory with disciplined underwriting and valuation support.
    • Tenant representation to secure fit-for-purpose space and negotiate from a position of strength.
    • Landlord representation to optimize income, tenant mix, and lease structure.
    • Commercial property valuation inputs and scenario testing to support decisions and lender conversations.
    • Commercial real estate strategy for portfolio planning, repositioning, and performance improvement.

    A practical next step

    If you’re considering a lease renewal, acquisition, disposal, development pathway, or portfolio review, a short advisory conversation can clarify options and identify the highest-impact levers. The earlier we’re involved, the more we can protect your position and improve outcomes.

    Request a Consultation
    Explore Services

    Klug provides data-driven commercial property advisory across Auckland and New Zealand—supporting strategy, transactions, development, asset management, finance, PropTech, and research.

  • Understanding the CIC Design Guidelines in 2026

    Understanding the CIC Design Guidelines in 2026

    If you are planning a new build, subdivision, or mixed-use project in 2026, the CIC Design Guidelines remain essential. Understanding the CIC Design Guidelines 2026 helps your professional team operate efficiently—defining who does what, when, and to what level of detail, from the first feasibility sketch through to handover and defects resolution.

    For investors, developers, and landowners, understanding the stages is less about box ticking. Furthermore, it is more about protecting capital, controlling risk, and keeping everyone accountable.

    The Framework Behind Every NZ Build: CIC Design Guidelines 2026

    The NZ Construction Industry Council (CIC) Design Guidelines 2016–2022 remain the primary industry standard. They define responsibilities and deliverables across the full project lifecycle. While a comprehensive update is expected, the current guidelines are still widely used. Consequently, they remain the day-to-day reference point for consultants, contractors, and funders across New Zealand.

    Stage 1 — Project Establishment Under CIC Design Guidelines 2026

    Stage 1 is where the foundations are set before any serious design spend occurs. Key tasks include establishing the project brief, budget, and a realistic high-level programme. In addition, this stage involves defining designer duties and health and safety planning under the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015. Furthermore, it requires stress-testing planning controls, consent pathways, and overall project viability before committing significant capital.

    Stages 2A & 2B — Preliminary and Developed Design

    Stages 2A and 2B move the project from concept into a coordinated and costed solution. Preliminary Design (2A) produces scaled plans, sections, and elevations. These are checked against the Building Code and district plan rules. Developed Design (2B) then coordinates structure, services, fire, facade, and sustainability strategies. As a result, it produces a robust, costed package ready for full documentation.

    By 2026, BIM is common on larger and public-sector projects for coordination and clash detection. Consequently, it reduces onsite variations and rework.

    Stage 3 — Detailed Design

    Stage 3 is where ideas become buildable documents that contractors can price and councils can consent. Outputs include fully coordinated drawings and specifications, as well as performance requirements. In addition, building consent documentation must align with current Building Code requirements.

    A key 2026 consideration is the November 2025 Building Code update. For example, it includes revised H1 energy efficiency requirements with a transition to 31 July 2026.

    Stage 4A — Procurement

    Stage 4A is about selecting and contracting the right build team. In 2026, NZS 3910:2023 is the current form. It replaces the traditional Engineer to the Contract with distinct Contract Administrator and Independent Reviewer roles. Furthermore, tenders should be assessed on programme, delivery methodology, and health and safety capability — not just price.

    Stage 4B — Construction Administration

    Stage 4B is where design intent is monitored against what is actually being built on site. The guidelines cover contract administration, site observation, and quality assurance through to Practical Completion. For investors and funders, this stage is critical to avoiding performance shortfalls. Consequently, it also helps in maintaining a robust audit trail.

    Stage 5 — Post Completion

    Stage 5 closes the loop and safeguards long-term asset performance. Key components include defects management and finalisation of accounts. This leads to Final Completion and release of retentions. In addition, it involves delivering digital as-built documentation, BIM models, warranties, and Code Compliance Certificates.

    Why This Matters for Your Next Project

    For Auckland landowners and developers, using this framework intelligently means better alignment between planning controls, yield, and feasibility assumptions from day one. Furthermore, it means fewer surprises during consenting, tendering, and construction. As a result, it provides stronger governance and evidence for lenders, investors, and JV partners throughout the lifecycle.

    Early engagement with the CIC stages is one of the most effective ways to protect project value in 2026. However, this is especially important as build costs, consenting risk, and funding criteria continue to tighten.

  • Development Management vs Project Management

    Development Management vs Project Management

    In property development, success depends on understanding the critical difference between development management and project management. While many people use these terms interchangeably, they represent distinct approaches to bringing commercial property projects to completion. Furthermore, knowing when to apply each discipline can determine whether a project delivers on its strategic and financial objectives.

    What Is Development Management?

    Development management focuses on the strategic vision and long-term positioning of a property project. It encompasses market analysis and feasibility studies, financial modelling and investment returns, strategic site selection and value creation, stakeholder alignment and deal structuring, and risk assessment and mitigation strategies. In essence, the development manager asks: What is the strategic value? Does it align with our investment objectives? How do we maximise returns for all parties?

    What Is Project Management?

    Project management, by contrast, focuses on tactical execution and day-to-day delivery. It involves scheduling and milestone tracking, budget control, contractor and consultant coordination, regulatory approvals and permits, and quality assurance. For example, project managers ask: Are we delivering on time and on budget? Does the work meet the construction specification? In New Zealand, project management practices typically follow the standards of the Project Management Institute of NZ.

    Why This Distinction Matters

    Successful property development requires both disciplines working in harmony. Without solid development management, teams may construct a project that delivers profitably on paper but suffers from strategic flaws. Without effective project management, even the best strategic vision fails in execution. Consequently, the most common mistakes occur when one function tries to perform both roles, leading to gaps in governance, cost overruns, or misaligned stakeholder expectations.

    At Klug, our experience across land development, feasibility studies, and project delivery gives us a unique perspective to guide clients from conception through completion. As a result, we can help you integrate both disciplines effectively. Explore our advisory services or contact us to discuss your next project.

  • NZ Commercial Leasing Just Changed — Are You Protected?

    NZ Commercial Leasing Just Changed — Are You Protected?

    Recent NZ commercial leasing changes have reshaped how landlords, tenants, and investors approach lease agreements. The ADLS Deed of Lease 7th Edition arrived in late 2024. As a result, it is now essential to understand three critical areas that could affect your commercial property interests.

    Understanding NZ Commercial Leasing Changes

    The Auckland District Law Society (ADLS) Deed of Lease 7th Edition introduces significant updates to commercial leases. For example, it changes how outgoings are managed, how disputes are resolved, and how capital expenditure is treated. Furthermore, these changes affect both existing and new lease negotiations. Consequently, all parties must review their current agreements carefully.

    Minimise Your Risk Under the New Framework

    Protecting your investments under the new framework is more important than ever. Key risk areas include outgoings recovery provisions, make-good obligations, rent reviews, and early termination rights. Each area requires careful structuring to protect your position. In addition, landlords must pay particular attention to how operational expenditure is now classified. However, tenants also need to ensure their lease terms align with the updated Property Law Act 2007 requirements.

    Maximise Property Value and Portfolio Performance

    Smart lease structuring under the updated framework can improve tenant retention and reduce vacancy risk. Furthermore, it can strengthen your negotiating position at renewal. Investors should review how these changes influence property valuations, income calculations, and long-term portfolio strategy. As a result, those who adapt their agreements proactively will maximise returns and strengthen their portfolio performance.

    Klug brings over 20 years of commercial property experience. We guide clients through these NZ commercial leasing changes to protect their interests and maximise returns. Whether you are acquiring, developing, or managing commercial property, these legislative updates may significantly affect your negotiations and portfolio performance. Explore our advisory services or view our case studies to see how we help clients stay ahead of the market.

  • Is Your Development Feasibility Actually Feasible?

    Is Your Development Feasibility Actually Feasible?

    A development feasibility NZ investors rely on can be the difference between a profitable project and a costly mistake. In today’s market with interest rates, tighter bank lending and volatile construction costs, the numbers behind commercial and multi-unit residential developments can make or break a project. Many New Zealand investors are shown glossy feasibility spreadsheets but aren’t always sure whether the deal genuinely stacks up.

    Here’s a practical 10-minute checklist to spot red flags early.

    The Four Numbers That Really Matter in Development Feasibility NZ

    When you open a feasibility, ignore the noise and hunt for these four key figures first:

    1. Gross Development Value — What the completed project is expected to be worth based on income and market yields.

    2. Total Project Cost — Everything required to deliver the scheme: land, construction, fees, finance and contingency.

    3. Margin on Cost — Profit as a percentage of total cost – your cushion if costs rise or values soften.

    4. Yield on Cost — Expected income return once built and leased, divided by total development cost.

    Understanding Yield on Cost in a Development Feasibility NZ Context

    Yield on cost is the all-in yield your project generates on the money you invest to create the finished asset. The formula is straightforward: stabilised net operating income divided by total project cost, expressed as a percentage.

    The crucial step is comparing your yield on cost to the yield (cap rate) that similar completed assets are currently trading at in the same market. The gap between the two is your development spread — your profit buffer for taking on development risk. The Reserve Bank of New Zealand monetary policy decisions directly influence these figures.

    When Conditions Move Against You

    A relatively small shift in exit cap rate can more than halve the profit because the initial spread was modest. This is why developers often look for at least 1.5–2.0 percentage points of spread between yield on cost and expected exit cap.

    Watch Out for These Optimism Traps

    Rent Assumptions — Proposed rents at the top end of recent evidence, particularly in secondary locations.

    Exit Yield — Feasibility only works if the project sells on a very sharp yield.

    Construction Costs — Outdated cost data or minimal contingency in an environment of inflation.

    Timelines — Delays drive higher finance costs and push out returns, eroding margin.

    Your 10-Minute Feasibility Checklist

    1. Locate the four key numbers and confirm total cost includes land, construction, fees, finance and contingency. 2. Calculate yield on cost and compare to current market yields. 3. Review for-sale projects against comparable existing stock. 4. Test whether rents, prices, yields, costs and programme feel realistic. 5. Run sensitivity tests to see how quickly margins deteriorate. 6. Note any light allowances as specific questions to raise with advisors.

    In today’s challenging market, knowing how to assess a development feasibility NZ property investors can trust is essential. Need help reviewing a development opportunity? Contact Klug for an independent view on your feasibility.

  • Is the Arbitration Act 1996 Still Relevant Today?

    Is the Arbitration Act 1996 Still Relevant Today?

    The Arbitration Act 1996 NZ has been the foundation of alternative dispute resolution in New Zealand for over 25 years. Many property professionals wonder if this legislative framework remains relevant in today’s commercial property landscape. The answer is an emphatic yes — it is more important than ever.

    What Is Arbitration?

    Arbitration is an alternative dispute resolution process where parties submit their disagreement to a neutral third party (an arbitrator) rather than going to court. The arbitrator makes a binding decision that both parties must accept. The Arbitration Act 1996 provides the legal framework governing this process in New Zealand.

    Why Arbitration Matters for Commercial Property

    Speed and Efficiency — Commercial property disputes can drag on for years in court, causing financial strain and uncertainty. Arbitration resolves disputes faster, allowing businesses to move forward without prolonged legal battles.

    Confidentiality — Unlike court proceedings, which are public, arbitration is private. This protects sensitive business information and commercial relationships from becoming public knowledge.

    Expert Decision-Making — Parties can select arbitrators with specific expertise in commercial property, ensuring decisions are informed by industry knowledge rather than general legal principles alone.

    Finality and Limited Appeal — Arbitration awards are binding and subject to very limited grounds for appeal. This provides certainty and closure, unlike court decisions that can be appealed multiple times.

    Cost Control — While arbitration is not free, the reduced timeframe often results in lower overall costs compared to lengthy court proceedings.

    Modern Relevance of the Arbitration Act 1996 NZ

    Today’s commercial property landscape is more complex than ever. From lease disputes and development agreements to multi-site network disagreements, the need for a reliable and efficient dispute resolution mechanism is critical. The Arbitration Act 1996 NZ provides this foundation, remaining as relevant today as it was at its inception.

    If you are facing a commercial property dispute or want to ensure your agreements include robust arbitration clauses, contact Klug to discuss how we can help protect your interests.