DOCSLIB.ORG

Annual Report 2015

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
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. Melville Jessup Weaver, the Fund’s actuary, has forecast that member contributions over time will continue to fall significantly providing there are no significant claims. Christchurch City Council Earthquake Claim Trustees continue to work with the Fund administration manager, Civic Assurance, on the settlement of the Christchurch City Council above-ground claims. The Trustees regularly receive comprehensive reports from Civic and the Fund’s loss adjusters, Cunningham Lindsey, on the activities being conducted to resolve issues. Members will be aware that the Christchurch City Council claim is large and complex and Civic and its reinsurers have challenged the amounts being claimed by the Council. This issue was highlighted in a recent press article where Civic, having commissioned three independent international loss adjusters each with their own engineering experts, explained its position on Lancaster Park (old AMI) stadium; none of these loss adjusting firms support Council’s position that the stadium should be treated as a total loss. I previously reported on Civic’s arbitration success with AIG and the recent arbitration with R+V Versicherung AC. Civic has reported that it considered the arbitration went well and, while there is always ‘litigation risk’, it remains confident of its position. The trustees remained focused on achieving a good and fair settlement for Christchurch City Council. 2 LAPP 2015 ANNUAL REPORT LAPP REINSURANCE Programme for 2015–2016 CENTRAL GOVT. 60% LAPP 40% $40 million funded $75 million less Govt. by reinsurance threshold(s). To be funded by Central Government $10 million funded by LAPP less member deductible(s) Govt. Threshold .0075% Member deductible(s) or .002% of NCV (many based on Govt. threshold) (not to scale) Member forum at Te Papa Trustees enjoyed discussing member issues with the membership at the LAPP member meeting held in April at the Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa. The meeting was immediately followed by a Riskpool members’ meeting, and trustees were encouraged to meet non-members and ex-members of LAPP and Riskpool who were keen to learn more about how local government mutual funds, of which there are hundreds around the world, work. Feedback from both member meetings was excellent and the format will be repeated next year. I encourage those who have an interest in risk management and the services of Riskpool and LAPP to attend in 2016. LAPP 2015 ANNUAL REPORT 3 CHAIRMAN’S REPORT (continued) Experts make a difference Risk Management Partners are experts in their field and they have extensive experience in New Zealand and Australia. Dr. Marlene Kanga advises LAPP and is known to many members through her visits and the risk profile reports that identify and measure the risks for each council and their region. Bryan Whitefield is the Managing Director of RMP and an adviser to LAPP where he also brings extensive risk management skills and experience that enhance the Fund and its ability to respond to a disaster. In addition Bryan is the President and Chairman of the Risk Management Institution of Australia; it is this type of specialist expertise that separates the Fund from other forms of protection. The future of LAPP LAPP has operated for 22 years and I am confident it will endure as an important part of local government thinking on risk management and risk financing. It truly represents the collaborative approach that the sector now embraces and it provides a uniquely focused approach for being prepared for the issues that come from reinstating underground infrastructure following a disaster. While today there are commercial interests that want to sell other options, at a profit of course, LAPP has been designed by local government people for local government people. My appreciation I wish to thank the administration management staff, particularly Tim Sole, Alistair Hanning, Roger Gyles, Frank Heaton and Oliver Gilmore along with Risk Management Partners, Bryan Whitefield and Marlene Kanga, for their skill and determination. The dedication and professionalism of our loss adjusters, Cunningham Lindsey and their co-opted experts, is much appreciated as is the support and contributions of my fellow trustees. Kinsley Sampson Chairman 4 LAPP 2015 ANNUAL REPORT INDEPENDENT AUDItor’S REPORT TO THE MEMBERS OF NEW ZEALAND LOCAL AUTHORITY PROTECTION PROGRAMME DISASTER FUND’S FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED 30 JUNE 2015 The Auditor-General is the auditor of New Zealand Local Uncertainty associated with the gross Authority Protection Programme Disaster Fund (“the claim liabilities and the related reinsurance recoveries Fund”). The Auditor-General has appointed me, Brent Manning, using the staff and resources of KPMG, to carry Without modifying our opinion, we draw your attention out the audit of the financial statements of the Fund on to Notes 5 and 6 to the financial statements, which her behalf. disclose the considerable uncertainty that exists for measuring the gross claim liabilities and the related Opinion reinsurance recoveries arising from the Canterbury We have audited the financial statements of the Fund on earthquakes during 2010 and 2011. We consider the pages 7 to 18, that comprise the statement of financial disclosures in Notes 5 and 6 to be adequate. position as at 30 June 2015, the statement of financial performance, statement of movements in equity and Basis of opinion statement of cash flows for the year ended on that date We carried out our audit in accordance with the Auditor- and the notes to the financial statements that include General’s Auditing Standards, which incorporate the accounting policies and other explanatory information. International Standards on Auditing (New Zealand). Those standards require that we comply with ethical In our opinion, the financial statements of the Fund: requirements and plan and carry out our audit to obtain • present fairly, in all material respects: reasonable assurance about whether the financial – its financial position as at 30 June 2015; and statements are free from material misstatement. – its financial performance and cash flows for the Material misstatements are differences or omissions of year then ended; and amounts and disclosures that, in our judgement, are likely • comply with generally accepted accounting to influence readers’ overall understanding of the financial practice in New Zealand and have been prepared in statements. If we had found material misstatements that accordance with Public Benefit Entity Standards with were not corrected, we would have referred to them in disclosure concessions. our opinion. Our audit was completed on 14 October 2015. This is the An audit involves carrying out procedures to obtain date at which our opinion is expressed. audit evidence about the amounts and disclosures in the The basis of our opinion is explained below. In addition, financial statements. The procedures selected depend we outline the responsibilities of the Trust Board and our on our judgement, including our assessment of risks responsibilities, and explain our independence. of material misstatement of the financial statements, whether due to fraud or error. In making those risk assessments, we consider internal control relevant to the preparation of the Fund’s financial statements in order to design audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Fund’s internal control. LAPP 2015 ANNUAL REPORT 5 INDEPENDENT AUDItor’S REPORT (continued) An audit also involves evaluating: Responsibilities of the Auditor • the appropriateness of accounting policies used and We are responsible for expressing an independent opinion whether they have been consistently applied; on the financial statements and reporting that opinion to you based on our audit. Our responsibility arises from • the reasonableness of the significant accounting section 15 of the Public Audit Act 2001 and clause 4.4.1 estimates and judgements made by the Trust Board; of the Trust Deed of the Fund. • the adequacy of the disclosures in the financial statements; and Independence • the overall presentation of the financial statements. When carrying out the audit, we followed the independence requirements of the Auditor-General, We did not examine every transaction, nor do we which incorporate the independence requirements of the guarantee complete accuracy of the financial statements. External Reporting Board. Also, we did not evaluate the security and controls over the electronic publication of the financial statements.
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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Christchurch Retail, Red Zones and the Rebuild
    Strategic Consultancy Retail Intelligence Rome wasn’t built in a day: Christchurch Retail, Red Zones and the Rebuild www.joneslanglasalle.co.nz 2 Executive Summary: The prohibition of redevelopment in large parts of Christchurch is significantly impacting the shape of the urban environment of the city. This is being executed through the identification of Red Zones. The majority of the residential Red Zones 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 5,000 properties in the Christchurch City Council area and around 100 properties in the Waimakariri District Council area in the residential red zone. Future trends suggest: A hollowing out of the area of Christchurch around the Avon River. A population drift to the North of Christchurch A population drift to the Southwest of Christchurch A significant uplift in populations of the small towns around Christchurch Growth in retail spending in these areas will create additional demand for close to 80,000 sqm of retail space. Just over 40,000 sqm of retail development is currently in the pipeline suggesting there remain opportunities to tap into this growing demand profile heading forward. We see the greatest opportunities in the Supermarket / Grocery space, DIY, Home Furnishings and Food and Beverage sectors. This development is however not without its challenges as stakeholders in Christchurch remain prickly to proposed intensification at the periphery at what they often see is at the expense of the CBD.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Risk Mitigation Following Canterbury Earthquakes
    Risk Mitigation following Canterbury Earthquakes Jim Palmer Chief Executive Waimakariri District Council Risk Mitigation – Two Ideas • Risk Assessment and Financing Strategy • Risk–based Reticulation Renewals Waimakariri District Hurunui District Waimakariri District Christchurch City Selwyn District Banks Peninsula Our Challenge We’ve withstood one major event and it cost $127M – can we withstand another one? . We are a net-debt, high-growth Council with few realisable assets . The Alpine Fault failure is ‘overdue’ with a 30% chance within 50 years…. and we have other natural hazard risks Our Response Developed a Risk Assessment and Financing Strategy Risk Assessment and Financing Strategy relating to Considered largest natural risks Major Natural Disasters - earthquake, flood, tsunami November 2014 Our Biggest Risk Our Response . Guestimated what the damage might be . Ground-truth it against the 2010 event . Considered funding strategy, both with and without insurance being available . Assessed impact on net debt & affordability . Developed as policy: . Limits for debt . Priority list for asset replacement Council Funding Position with Crown Support and Insurance Estimated Crown/NZTA Insurance Council Share Reinstatement funding funding Cost $M $M $M $M Above-ground Infrastructure and 30 0 30 0 Buildings Below-ground Infrastructure 67 40 27 0 Roading 40 28 12 Reserves 10 0 0 10 Emergency Response/repairs 20 15 0 5 Community Support 5 0 0 5 Total 172 83 57 32 Debt Limits - borrowing as % of operating revenue Debt Limits with Headroom Outcomes . Gives confidence the consequences of major events can be accommodated . Demonstrates prudent management in terms of debt levels and affordability . Provides priority for asset reinstatement Risk-based Reticulation Renewals • Reticulation renewals were based on age, condition, and performance.
    [Show full text]
  • 13-1 the 2010-2011 Canterbury New Zealand Earthquakes
    THE 2010-2011 CANTERBURY NEW ZEALAND EARTHQUAKES AND THE EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT OF BUILDINGS AND INFRASTRUCTURE Peter R Wood1, Dave Brunsdon2, John Hare3, Mike Stannard4, Bruce Galloway3 Abstract The 2010-2011 Canterbury sequence occurred in an area of New Zealand with a low probabilistic seismic hazard. The sequence commenced with the M7.1 Darfield earthquake of 4 September 2010 that caused unprecedented urban liquefaction and lateral spreading, severely damaged unreinforced masonry buildings, caused significant non-structural damage, and disrupted infrastructure. Aftershocks included the damaging events of: December 2010; February 2011; June 2011; and December 2011. The 22 February 2011 M6.3 event caused significant shaking of Christchurch, New Zealand’s second largest City, with even more unprecedented urban liquefaction, lateral spreading, additional severe damage to and collapse of unreinforced masonry buildings causing fatalities and injuries, further non-structural damage and disruption to infrastructure, and damage to modern buildings. Two multi-storey, reinforced concrete buildings collapsed with fatalities and injuries. Rock fall and cliff collapse caused additional fatalities and injuries. A total of 185 lives were lost. A state of National Emergency was in place for just over two months. Prior to the Canterbury earthquake sequence, ATC-20 Procedures for Postearthquake Safety Evaluation of Buildings was adapted to the New Zealand statutory environment and published by the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering as Building Safety Evaluations during a State of Emergency Guidelines for Territorial Authorities 2009. Adaptations incorporated experiences from earthquakes in Gisborne New Zealand, L’Aquila Italy, and Padang Indonesia, and included recognizing that a building may be compromised by the state of its neighboring surrounds.
    [Show full text]
  • Submission to Waimakariri District Council 2021 Long Term Plan
    Kaiapoi Promotion Association Inc. PO Box 130 Kaiapoi 12 April 2021 Submission to Waimakariri District Council 2021 Long Term Plan The Kaiapoi Promotion Association Inc (KPA) welcomes the opportunity to make this submission to the 2021 Long Term Plan. A Cycleway Development The KPA strongly supports of the proposal to provide $250,000 in the Recreation budget towards the construction of a recreational cycle route from the north end of the Waimakariri River bridge to central Kaiapoi utilising the existing Ecan stopbanks. This proposal to include the project in the 2020/21 Annual Plan was supported by the council following the consideration of presentations from KPA and ENC at its meeting on 1 October 2019. At that meeting ENC highlighted that this recreational route is a key component of a wider recreational cycle route extending into North Canterbury. The KPA was very disappointed that the Council did not proceed with this project in the 2020/21 year. The Council has spent a lot of money developing the central Kaiapoi area and it is imperative that the cycleways are located in places that makes access to central Kaiapoi simple and safe for visitors. While the Council has completed a commuter route to link the CNC cycle route to the Kaiapoi to Rangiora route, this route will not appeal to visitors and recreational walkers and cyclists. The recent Kaiapoi Brand workshop concluded that walking and cycling is a key attraction for visitors to Kaiapoi, and that the residents of North Christchurch are the primary target market for visitors. As the country emerges from the current lockdown it is clear that domestic visitors to Kaiapoi will be key to ensuring that a wide range of businesses in the Kaiapoi area survive.
    [Show full text]
  • Physical Disability Specialist Service Provider in Waimakariri District
    Physical Disability Specialist Service Provider in Waimakariri District, Christchurch City, Banks Peninsula and Selwyn District Isleworth School Ph: 03 359 8553 59A Farrington Ave Fax: 03 359 8560 Bishopdale Christchurch List of schools covered by the specialist service provider (Isleworth School): Waimakariri District Ashgrove School Pegasus Bay School Ashley School Rangiora Borough School Clarkville School Rangiora High School Cust School Rangiora New Life School Fernside School St Joseph's School (Rangiora) Kaiapoi Borough School St Patrick's School (Kaiapoi) Kaiapoi High School Sefton School Kaiapoi North School Southbrook School Karanga Mai Young Parents College Swannanoa School Loburn School Tuahiwi School North Loburn School View Hill School Ohoka School West Eyreton School Oxford Area School Woodend School Christchurch City Aranui High School Our Lady of Fatima School (Chch) Avonside Girls' High School Our Lady of Assumption School (Chch) Addington School Our Lady of Victories School Aranui School (Christchurch) Ouruhia Model School Avondale School (Christchurch) Papanui High School Avonhead School Papanui School Bamford School Paparoa Street School Banks Avenue School Parkview School Beckenham School Queenspark School Belfast School Rangi Ruru Girls' School Bishopdale School Rawhiti School Breens Intermediate School Redcliffs School Bromley School Redwood School (Christchurch) Burnside High School Riccarton High School Burnside Primary School Riccarton School Canterbury Christian College Rudolf Steiner School (Christchurch) Casebrook
    [Show full text]
  • Reconstruction in New Zealand Post 2010-11 Christchurch Earthquakes
    ReBuilDD Field Trip February 2012 RECONSTRUCTION IN NEW ZEALAND POST 2010-11 CHRISTCHURCH EARTHQUAKES Stephen Platt Christchurch city centre, February 2012 UNIVERSITY OF ImageCat CAMBRIDGE CAR Published by Cambridge Architectural Research Ltd. CURBE was established in 1997 to create a structure for interdisciplinary collaboration for disaster and risk research and application. Projects link the skills and expertise from distinct disciplines to understand and resolve disaster and risk issues, particularly related to reducing detrimental impacts of disasters. CURBE is based at the Martin Centre within the Department of Architecture at the University of Cambridge. About the research This report is one of a number of outputs from a research project funded by the UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC), entitled Indicators for Measuring, Monitoring and Evaluating Post-Disaster Recovery. The overall aim of the research is to develop indicators of recovery by exploiting the wealth of data now available, including that from satellite imagery, internet-based statistics and advanced field survey techniques. The specific aim of this trip report is to describe the planning process after major disaster with a view to understanding the information needs of planners. Project team The project team has included Michael Ramage, Dr Emily So, Dr Torwong Chenvidyakarn and Daniel Brown, CURBE, University of Cambridge Ltd; Professor Robin Spence, Dr Stephen Platt and Dr Keiko Saito, Cambridge Architectural Research; Dr Beverley Adams and Dr John Bevington, ImageCat. Inc; Dr Ratana Chuenpagdee, University of Newfoundland who led the fieldwork team in Thailand; and Professor Amir Khan, University of Peshawar who led the fieldwork team in Pakistan.
    [Show full text]