Christchurch Retail, Red Zones and the Rebuild
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Public Health Response to the February 22 Christchurch Earthquake
Public Health Response to the February 22 Christchurch Earthquake Progress Report Rebecca Dell Public Health Medicine Registrar Daniel Williams Medical Officer of Health, Incident Controller 30 March 2011 CONTENTS 1. Abbreviations 3 2. Background 3 3. Intelligence 4 4. Communications 6 5. Liaison 7 6. Operations 9 a. CPH Emergency Operations Centre 9 b. Water quality and technical advice 9 c. Welfare centres 11 d. Outbreak control 12 e. Community Welfare Recovery 12 f. Health In All Policies 13 7. Logistics 13 a. Staff 13 b. Building 14 c. Equipment 14 d. Staff welfare 14 8. Recovery 15 9. Assessment 17 10. Appendices 18 Appendix 1 Intelligence and surveillance inputs for earthquake response 18 Appendix 2 Enteric disease notifications for Canterbury 23 Appendix 3 E. coli transgressions mapping 26 Appendix 4 Free Associated Chlorine concentration mapping 28 Appendix 5 Enteric disease Episurv notifications by census area unit 29 Appendix 6 Campylobacter notifications following 22 February 30 Appendix 7 Draft results for Wave 1 of Christchurch Health Survey 31 Appendix 8 Latest public health key messages 45 Appendix 9 Public health guidelines for reopening of schools and early childhood centres 46 Appendix 10 Public health advice for early childhood centres 48 Appendix 11 Public health advice about asbestos dust 49 Appendix 12 Health Assessment Form for Welfare Centres 51 Page 2 of 54 1. ABBREVIATIONS CCC Christchurch City Council CDHB Canterbury District Health Board CPH Community and Public Health (public health division of CDHB) ECC Emergency Co-ordination Centre (at Christchurch Art Gallery) EOC Emergency Operations Centre EQRC Earthquake Recovery Centre (Civil Defence recovery phase at Christchurch Art Gallery HPO Health Protection Officer MOH Medical Officer of Health NZFSA New Zealand Food Safety Authority PHS Public Health South (Southern District Health Board) 2. -
Seismic Ratings for Degrading Structural Systems
205 GEOTECHNICAL ASPECTS OF THE 22 FEBRUARY 2011 CHRISTCHURCH EARTHQUAKE Misko Cubrinovski1, Brendon Bradley1, Liam Wotherspoon2, Russell Green3, Jonathan Bray4, Clint Wood5, Michael Pender2, 6 7 8 1 John Allen , Aaron Bradshaw , Glenn Rix , Merrick Taylor , Kelly Robinson1, Duncan Henderson1, Simona Giorgini1, Kun Ma1, Anna Winkley1, Josh Zupan4, Thomas O’Rourke9, 10 11 Greg DePascale , Donnald Wells SUMMARY The 22 February 2011, Mw6.2-6.3 Christchurch earthquake is the most costly earthquake to affect New Zealand, causing 181 fatalities and severely damaging thousands of residential and commercial buildings, and most of the city lifelines and infrastructure. This manuscript presents an overview of observed geotechnical aspects of this earthquake as well as some of the completed and on-going research investigations. A unique aspect, which is particularly emphasized, is the severity and spatial extent of liquefaction occurring in native soils. Overall, both the spatial extent and severity of liquefaction in the city was greater than in the preceding 4th September 2010 Darfield earthquake, including numerous areas that liquefied in both events. Liquefaction and lateral spreading, variable over both large and short spatial scales, affected commercial structures in the Central Business District (CBD) in a variety of ways including: total and differential settlements and tilting; punching settlements of structures with shallow foundations; differential movements of components of complex structures; and interaction of adjacent structures via common foundation soils. Liquefaction was most severe in residential areas located to the east of the CBD as a result of stronger ground shaking due to the proximity to the causative fault, a high water table approximately 1m from the surface, and soils with composition and states of high susceptibility and potential for liquefaction. -
Richmond Residential Red Zone: Summary of Technical Information As at Area ID: 15A, September 2016 15B
Richmond residential red zone: Summary of Technical Information as at Area ID: 15A, September 2016 15B Purpose of this document: The following information provides a summary of the local environmental values, conditions and potential hazards. The information has been gathered using the best available technical data held by a number of agencies and organisations. It does not identify or assess land use options or the feasibility of land uses. The information in this document is not, and should not be interpreted as, a pre-determination, recommendation or decision about future use. No decisions regarding the future use of this land have been made. Overview of Richmond residential red zone (Area 15): Area 15 is approximately 27 hectares in area and adjoins River Road along the margins of the Ōtākaro/Avon River from Banks Avenue to the east and Fitzgerald Avenue to the west. To the north and west, Area 15 adjoins existing urban areas. This Area had a number of significant home gardens with mature trees some of which are still being tended. Area 15 is susceptible to a number of natural hazards, which can potentially occur either in isolation or collectively leading to a number of adverse cascading effects. The risk from many of these hazards will increase over time due to the accelerating effects of sea level rise. The area is particularly prone to lateral spreading. Land contamination may be an issue for much of the site. Location Map 1 Natural Environment and Cultural Setting and Features Natural Environment Adjacent to the Ōtākaro/Avon River and Tributaries Significant Ecological Site (site ID no. -
Canterbury Residential Red Zone Household Hazardous Waste Project
Canterbury Residential Red Zone Household Hazardous Waste Project The Canterbury Residential Red Zone Household Hazardous Waste Project was developed to support earthquake recovery by enabling the collection and appropriate disposal of hazardous materials from red zoned residential properties prior to demolition. The key purpose was to minimise the associated risks to human health and the environment. The devastating effects of the Canterbury Earthquakes of September 2010 and February 2011 continue to shape the city around us as Christchurch recovers. We have seen the overwhelming task of rebuilding a city realised, with a new precinct based central city, changes to transport networks and the re-zoning of land to manage new risks of liquefaction. On a daily basis the changes to the urban landscape remind us of the significance of the events that literally shape the redevelopment of Christchurch. Decimating the central business district and the majority of historic and tall buildings across the city, the earthquakes also had significant effects in the east and north east residential suburbs. Huge swathes of these suburbs, where liquefaction created a number of issues including the immediate disruption of services and damage to infrastructure, were subsequently assessed and rezoned for demolition, due the property damage which had occurred and instability of land. Affected properties were acquired (compulsorily) by the Crown to ensure the removal of the hazard posed by residential development on instable ground, creating the Canterbury Residential Red Zone (RRZ). The dispersion of people as a result of the earthquake and the restricted access meant that many of these properties were left in an as is state, still containing an undisturbed cache of personal possessions and household items, including hazardous substances and materials which would need appropriate disposal. -
Independent Assessment Report | October Waimakariri District Council
Waimakariri District Council Independent assessment report | October * An independent assessment report issued by the Independent Assessment Board for the CouncilMARK™ local government excellence programme. For more information visit www.councilmark.co.nz 1 MBIE 2016 2 Stats NZ Census 2013 3 DIA 2013 4 Ministry of Transport 2013/14 *Period of assessment March 2017 Waimakariri District Council assessment report 1 Assessment Summary AT A GLANCE The Waimakariri district is expecting continued rapid growth yet retains its rural/small town character. The current situation Waimakariri District Council is a medium-sized, high-growth council emerging from the rebuild that has followed the Canterbury earthquakes. In addition, approximately 10,000 people have moved into the district since the earthquakes, with a further 8,000 forecast to move there over the next seven years. As a result, some substantial issues have emerged. Competition over resources and priorities for development has built up between Rangiora, Kaiapoi and Woodend. Period of assessment The assessment was conducted on 13 and 14 March 2017. Notwithstanding the significant capital investment which has occurred post-earthquakes, particularly in infrastructure, there continues to be strong demand for further investment in local facilities. Transport solutions are needed to ensure the district remains a viable commuter suburb, with 42 per cent of the workforce now commuting to Christchurch. 2 CouncilMARK™ $1,100m GROSS DOMESTIC 1 PRODUCT SERVES RESPONSIBLE FOR MAKES UP 1,546km 57,800 % ROADS4 2 0.841 PEOPLE , A MIX OF 3 91% EUROPEAN/PAKEHA OF NEW ZEALAND’S TOTAL LAND AREA 7% MĀORI REPRESENTING WAIMAKARIRI 2% ASIAN DISTRICT, FROM PEGASUS BAY THROUGH TO PUKETERAKI RANGE, AN AREA OF: 2 2,255 km POPULATION TREND HIGH GROWTH Key learnings The Council needs to be responsive to the pace and timing of change expected by its community relative to its own plans. -
Residential Red Zone Fact Sheet
23 June 2011 Residential Red Zone Fact Sheet Geotechnical engineers Tonkin & Taylor have assessed and mapped residential land damage caused by the Canterbury earthquakes of 2010 and 2011. Some land in the Christchurch City and Waimakariri District areas has been so badly damaged by the earthquakes since 4 September 2010 it is unlikely it can be rebuilt on for a considerable period of time. Engineers have mapped these areas and categorised them as residential red zone. These properties are located in: • the east of Christchurch (along the Avon and in related areas usually associated with waterways or former waterways); • in the north-east of Christchurch (e.g. Brooklands); and • in the beach area of Waimakariri District (i.e. Kairaki Beach). There are currently about 5000 properties in the Christchurch City Council area and around 100 properties in the Waimakariri District Council area in the residential red zone. The criteria for defining areas as residential red zone are: • There is significant and extensive area wide land damage; • Most buildings are uneconomic to repair • There is a high risk of further damage to land and buildings from low- levels of shaking; and • The success of engineering solutions would be uncertain and uneconomic; and • Any repair would be disruptive and take a considerable period of time. In the residential red zone, area-wide land damage is so extensive there is an increased likelihood of further damage due to liquefaction and lateral spreading from the ongoing series of aftershocks. The 5.7 and 6.3 magnitude earthquakes on 13 June 2011 demonstrated this. Homeowners in the residential red zone face lengthy disruption that could go on for years. -
Lincoln Planning Review December 2015
Lincoln Planning Review December 2015. Volume 7. Issue 1-2 Coastal modelling of sea level rise for the Christchurch coastal environment Whose interests count? The Malvern Hills Protection Society and an irrigation scheme proposal A failed attempt at collaborative water planning Selwyn Waihora Variation 1 ISSN 1175-0987 Lincoln Planning Review, 7 (1-2) (2015) Table of Contents Lincoln Planning Review is the journal of the Lincoln University EDITORIAL ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 1 Planning Association (LUPA) Sarah Edwards, Acting Editor-in-Chief and is an online publication produced twice each year and PEER REVIEWED ARTICLES primarily edited by students Coastal modelling of sea level rise for the Christchurch coastal The vision is “to be the pre- eminent source of information environment ������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 3 Ashton EAVES, Crile DOSCHER on planning issues, research and education in and affecting the Central and upper South RESEARCH Island”. Whose interests count? The Malvern Hills Protection Society and an Contact LPR: irrigation scheme proposal ����������������������������������������������������������16 Editor Nicola SNOYINK LPR c/o NRE Building PO Box 85084 FIELD NOTES AND CASE STUDIES Lincoln University, Lincoln 7647 Canterbury A failed attempt at collaborative water planning: Selwyn Waihora New Zealand Variation 1��������������������������������������������������������������������������������23 Hamish G. RENNIE Email: [email protected] -
Regions of Liquefaction Damage in Kaiapoi Following the Canterbury Earthquakes and Their Correlation with Former River Channels
Regions Of Liquefaction Damage In Kaiapoi Following The Canterbury Earthquakes And Their Correlation With Former River Channels L.M. Wotherspoon, M.J. Pender & R.P. Orense The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand SUMMARY: The town of Kaiapoi, 17 km north of the city of Christchurch in the Canterbury region of New Zealand, suffered significant damage as a result of liquefaction and lateral spreading during the 2010-2011 Canterbury earthquake sequence. Severe lateral spreading and large volumes of ejecta were present throughout the town and surrounding region. Shifts in the path of the rivers in the region have been extensive since the beginnings of European settlement in the 1850s, and as a result there are multiple areas within the town and surrounding area that were, until recently, channels of the river. Using historical data, areas that had been reclaimed were identified, and when compared with the areas of severe liquefaction damage following these earthquakes, the strong correlation between the two was revealed. The significant damage to buildings, infrastructure and services in these regions highlights the importance of having a clear understanding of historical river modifications in seismically active regions. Keywords: Liquefaction, lateral spreading, Canterbury earthquakes, river modification 1. INTRODUCTION Kaiapoi is a small town approximately 17 km north of the city of Christchurch in the Canterbury region of New Zealand (See Figure 1 and 3a). On 4 September 2010, the Mw7.1 Darfield earthquake occurred 42 km to the south west of Kaiapoi. This earthquake resulted in severe liquefaction-induced damage in both Christchurch and Kaiapoi, with Kaiapoi experiencing some of the most severe damage from the resulting lateral spreading, settlement and ejected material. -
Population Movements Following the 2010-2011 Canterbury Earthquakes: Summary of Research Workshops November 2011 and Current Evidence, GNS Miscellaneous Series 44
BIBLIOGRAPHIC REFERENCE Newell, J.; Beaven, S.; Johnston, D.M. 2012. Population movements following the 2010-2011 Canterbury Earthquakes: Summary of research workshops November 2011 and current evidence, GNS Miscellaneous Series 44. 23 p + Appendix C. J. Newell, Monitoring and Evaluation Research Associates Ltd (MERA), PO Box 2445, Wellington, 6140 S. Beaven, Natural Hazards Research Centre, University of Canterbury, Private Bag 4800, Christchurch, 8140 D.M. Johnston, Joint Centre for Disaster Research, Massey University/GNS Science, PO Box 756, Wellington 6140 © Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences Limited, 2012 ISSN 1177-2441 ISBN 978-0-478-19899-7 i 2012 CONTENTS ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................. III KEYWORDS ........................................................................................................................... III 1.0 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 4 1.1 Workshop and Conferences ........................................................................... 5 1.1.1 Short-term population movements after earthquakes ........................... 6 1.1.2 Likely longer term loss of population ..................................................... 7 1.1.3 Implications for future growth forecasting ............................................. 8 1.1.3.1 Departures from condemned properties ................................ 9 1.1.3.2 -
Annual Report 2015
ANNUAL 2015 REPORT NEW ZEALAND LOCAL AUTHORITY PROTECTION PROGRAMME DISASTER FUND CONTENTS CHAIRMAN’S REPORT 2 INDEPENDENT AUDItor’S REPORT 5 STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE 7 STATEMENT OF MOVEMENTS IN EQUITY 8 STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL POSITION 9 STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS 10 Notes to THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 11 TRUSTEE INFORMATION 19 2014 – 2015 FUND YEAR MEMBERSHIP 20 DIRectoRY 21 TRUST DEED 22 PARTICIPATION DEED 33 LAPP 2015 ANNUAL REPORT 1 CHAIRMAN’S REPORT I AM DELIGHTED TO REPORT THAT THE FINANCIAL STRENGTH OF THE FUND CONTINUES TO GROW Prior to being fully utilized to meet the 2010-11 Canterbury earthquake claims, the LAPP Fund was $40 million. Just five years on and allowing for the receipt of its 2015-16 contributions, the Fund now stands at $20 million. This provides members, when combined with the Fund’s reinsurance, with protection covering two events of up to $125m each while still leaving the Fund with a reasonable base to rebuild from. This impressive rate of rebuilding the Fund since the 2010-11 Canterbury earthquakes while still providing members with a good level of cover demonstrates the commitment of members to get themselves appropriately prepared for a possible future major disaster. Membership at 1 July 2015 is 32 I continue to be encouraged by those members who have remained loyal to LAPP. Trustees were pleased to approve a 20% reduction in contributions for the 2015-16 year, because the Fund for 2015-16 was able to negotiate lower reinsurance costs which, added to the investment income from the cash component, meant a more efficient risk to cost benefit. -
Canterbury), New Zealand Earthquake of September 4, 2010
EERI Special Earthquake Report — November 2010 Learning from Earthquakes The Mw 7.1 Darfield (Canterbury), New Zealand Earthquake of September 4, 2010 From September 8th to 20th, 2010, at 4:36 am, as well as to the moder- magnitude at 7.1 with a predomi- a team organized by the Earth- ate level of shaking in the most popu- nantly strike-slip focal mechanism quake Engineering Research Insti- lated areas of the Canterbury region. having a right-lateral focal plane tute (EERI) and the Pacific Earth- New Zealand also benefits from a striking east-west. However, more quake Engineering Research modern structural code and rigorous detailed and ongoing analysis has (PEER) Center investigated the code enforcement. Regional planning revealed a strong reverse faulting effects of the Darfield earthquake. had been undertaken to reduce criti- component to the mainshock. The team was led by Mary Comerio, cal infrastructure and lifelines vulner- The surface rupture spans nearly UC Berkeley, and included Lucy ability to natural hazards about 15 30 km and consists of fault scarps Arendt, University of Wisconsin, years ago (Centre for Advanced Engi- that locally exceed 4 m of right- Green Bay; Michel Bruneau, Uni- neering, 1997), with improvements in lateral and about 1 m of vertical versity of Buffalo, New York; local government and utilities pre- dislocation of the ground surface. Peter Dusicka, Portland State Uni- paredness, as well as the retrofitting In most places along and near the versity; Henri Gavin, Duke Univer- of bridges and other lifeline facilities. fault, the ground surface on the sity; Charles Roeder, University of Christchurch is the largest city on the south side has been raised relative Washington; and Fred Turner, Cali- South Island of New Zealand, and to the north side. -
Draft Plan, 1998
Have your Say... C C C Plan : 1998 Edition Volume 2 Volume 1998 Edition C Plan : Christchurch City Council 1998 Annual Plan THETHE PLAN :: 19971998 EDITION EDITION - TIMETABLE- TIMETABLE AND & SUBMISSION SUBMISSION PROCESSPROCESS Key Dates Q. How do I make a submission to the Council? Monday 27 April 1998 Public notice of Draft Plan A. Use the forms at the back of this Plan or write your seeking submissions from comments in another format and send to: the public. 1998 Plan Submission Thursday 28 May 1998 Public submissions close. Christchurch City Council PO Box 237 Monday 15 June to Strategy and Resources Christchurch Wednesday 17 June 1998 Committee hears oral (Also Thursday 18 and submissions and considers Fax: (03) 371-1786 Friday 19 June 1998 if written submissions on the draft Email: [email protected] necessary) Plan. to arrive by 5.00 pm Thursday 28 May 1998 or deliver it to any of the places listed in the answer to The hearings will take place the final question. Mark the envelope “1998 PLAN in the No. 2 Committee Room, SUBMISSION”. First Floor of the Civic Offices, 163 Tuam Street. Please include your telephone number. Say whether or not you want to appear in person on 15-17 June Monday 29 June 1998 Council meets to finalise the 1998. (2.00 pm) 1998 Plan. The meeting will be held in the CouncilChamber, Q. Are the meetings where submissions are heard very Ground Floor of the Civic formal? Offices. A. Far from it. Members of the panel will have read your (The meetings on 15-17 June and 29 June are open to the statement beforehand and have it with them.