DOCSLIB.ORG

Red Zone. the Report Reflects the Views of Individuals Affected by the Red Zoning Who Did Not Accept the Within This Cohort

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Red Zone. the Report Reflects the Views of Individuals Affected by the Red Zoning Who Did Not Accept the Within This Cohort Staying in the red zones Monitoring human rights in the Canterbury earthquake recovery Te manawaroa ki te pae whero Whakaora rü whenua Waitaha he aroturuki tika tangata A report by the New Zealand Human Rights Commission about the people living or owning vacant land in the residential red zones in mid-2015 He aha te mea nui o te ao? He tangata, he tangata, he tangata What is the most important thing in the world? It is the people, it is the people, it is the people Brooklands community farewell event, 9 September, 2012. Staying in the red zones Monitoring human rights in the Canterbury earthquake recovery Te manawaroa ki te pae whero Whakaora rü whenua Waitaha he aroturuki tika tangata A report by the New Zealand Human Rights Commission about the people living or owning vacant land in the residential red zones in mid-2015 October 2016 Dr Margaret MacDonald Dr Sally Carlton Senior Human Rights Specialist Human Rights Specialist New Zealand Human Rights Commission Contact Human Rights Commission InfoLine Office of Human Rights Proceedings 0800 496 877 (toll free) Te Tari Whakatau Take Tika Tangata Fax 09 377 3593 (attn: InfoLine) Email [email protected] Email [email protected] PO Box 6751, Wellesley Street, TXT 0210 236 4253 Auckland 1141 www.hrc.co.nz Language Line and NZ Sign Language interpreters available If you have a hearing or speech impairment, you can contact the HRC using the New Zealand Relay Service. NZ Relay is a telecommunications service and all calls are confidential. www.nzrelay.co.nz Tämaki Makaurau � Auckland Level 7, AIG Building 41 Shortland Street, Auckland 1010 PO Box 6751, Wellesley Street Tämaki Makaurau Auckland 1141 Waea Telephone 09 309 0874 Te Whanganui ä Tara � Wellington Level 8, Vector Building 44-52 The Terrace PO Box 12411, Thorndon Te Whanganui ä Tara Wellington 6144 Waea Telephone 04 473 9981 Ötautahi � Christchurch Level 1, BNZ Centre 120 Hereford Street Christchurch 8011 Waea Telephone 03 379 2015 ISBN: 978-0-478-35656-4 (Print) ISBN: 978-0-478-35657-1 (Online) Published October 2016 Auckland, Aotearoa New Zealand All photographs © Margaret MacDonald except images on pp. 46, 69, 82, 145, by Sally Carlton. Contents Acknowledgements 6 Foreword – Kupu whakataki 8 A note on terminology 11 Abbreviations 11 Executive summary 13 Part 1 Introduction Körero whakataki 23 The earthquakes 24 The response 25 The damage 25 Monitoring human rights 26 Research aims 28 How was the research conducted? 28 Part 2 What are the residential red zones? He aha ngä nöhanga pae whero? 29 Land zoning in Greater Christchurch 30 Maps of the residential red zones 31 The number of properties in the residential red zones 36 Government purchase offers 36 The administration of the red zones 44 Future use of the residential red zones 45 Part 3 The Commission’s survey of people affected by the red zoning who did not accept the Government offer Te tatauranga a Te Kähui Tika Tangata ö ngä tangata e noho ana i te pae whero 47 The survey 48 Demographics of the survey respondents 49 The interviewees 51 Interest in having their voices heard 53 Transcripts of the interviews 53 Staying in the Red Zone 3 Part 4 What financial issues have people faced because of the red zoning? He aha ngä kaupapa ahumoni e pä ana ki ngä tängata e noho ana i te pae whero? 55 Survey respondents’ mortgage situation 56 Survey respondents’ insurance situation 58 The status of red zone residents’ properties 63 Part 5 Why have some people remained living in the residential red zones? He aha ai ka noho ëtahi tängata ki te pae whero? 67 Red zone residents living in their property by choice 68 Red zone residents not living in their property by choice 74 Respondents’ hopes regarding their length of residency at their address 75 Part 6 What issues do affected people face, and what are the impacts of these issues? He aha ngä kaupapa e aro ana ki te hunga päpä, ä he aha ngä whakaaweawe? 77 Communication 78 Access to information 85 Participation, engagement and collaboration in decision making 92 Part 7 What issues do specific groups of people face, and what are the impacts of these issues? He aha ngä kaupapa e aro ana ki ia tau tängata, ä he aha ngä whakaaweawe? 100 Section 124 of the Building Act notices in the Port Hills 102 The Government purchase offers: owners of vacant land, commercial properties and uninsured residential properties 115 The revaluation of red zone properties 117 The provision and maintenance of services to the residential red zones 123 Part 8 What other impacts did the red zoning have? He aha ëtahi atu whakaaweawe e pä ana ki te pae whero? 126 Survey respondents’ wellbeing 127 The extent to which specific earthquake issues are affecting survey respondents’ lives 136 4 New Zealand Human Rights Commission Part 9 What is needed to improve life in the RRZ? Pëhea nei te whakapai ake i te nöhanga ki te pae whero? 143 The removal of the red zone label 145 Knowing what the future holds 147 Honest and transparent communication 149 Infrastructure and amenities repair 150 Other desired changes 150 Part 10 Looking forward Tirohanga whakamua 151 Affected people’s lessons learnt, suggestions and recommendations 152 Affected people’s unanswered questions and unresolved issues 157 Glossary 161 Agencies 161 Terms 162 Appendix 1: Survey development 163 Methodology 163 Ethical considerations 164 Appendix 2: Survey distribution 166 Appendix 3: Survey response rate 168 Appendix 4: Survey analysis and guide to its interpretation 170 Appendix 5: Timeline of key land-zoning announcements 171 Appendix 6: Timeline of key government announcements about and legal interventions in the RRZs 174 Endnotes 178 Staying in the Red Zone 5 Acknowledgements This report could not have been written without the information provided to us by people affected by the red zoning of land areas following the Canterbury earthquakes of 2010/11. The Commission particularly thanks the research participants who responded to the survey and who were interviewed. It also acknowledges the support of people both outside and within the Government who contributed to this research and to our understanding of the issues. In addition to people affected by the red zoning, the Commission would like to thank the New Zealand Red Cross, with whom it partnered for the outreach campaign phase of this research and who provided the Deprivation Index and heat mapping used in this report. The Commission would also like to thank the Canterbury District Health Board for feedback on aspects of the report relating to the wellbeing findings, as well as the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority for providing data and maps. The Commission followed a rigorous consultation process when finalising the report. The draft report was circulated for comment to agencies mentioned within it. Excerpts from participant interviews that could be considered critical of particular agencies were sent to these agencies, along with a copy of the draft report. In total, the draft report was sent to 20 agencies. The majority of these agencies took the opportunity to respond, and these responses have been considered when finalising the report. The Commission would like to acknowledge information and feedback provided by the following: CanCERN; Canterbury District Health Board; Christchurch City Council; Environment Canterbury; Earthquake Commission; Fletcher EQR; GNS Science; Greater Christchurch Group within the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet; Independent Hearings Panel; Land Information New Zealand (Valuer-General); Land Valuation Tribunal; Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment; Ministry of Social Development; New Zealand Post; New Zealand Red Cross; Regenerate Christchurch; Stronger Christchurch Infrastructure Rebuild Team; Quotable Value; and Waimakariri District Council. 6 New Zealand Human Rights Commission Part 0 text Martin: We’re called the red zoners. We have got a name and partly we took it with pride and with the feeling of defiance, we are the red zone. Some people said, “What? We don’t understand what it means.” And some say, “Good on you.” So the reactions of people became important for us in a way too. We didn’t want to be red zoners. Anne: No-one wants to be red zoners. Martin: But at one stage I thought, “OK, I’m a red zoner now.” Anne: You have to kind of find a dignity in your situation in order to make peace with it somehow ... you have to sort of claim it as a positive thing rather than it always being a negative thing. Staying in the Red Zone 7 Foreword Kupu whakataki The Canterbury earthquakes of 2010/11 were a stark This report contributes to the recovery and reminder that New Zealand is highly susceptible to disaster preparedness conversation. It continues earthquakes. The scale of the damage meant that large, the Commission’s monitoring of the Canterbury far-reaching decisions needed to be made, and it is recovery and follows the Commission’s 2013 report, important that we now assess these actions and what which mapped human rights issues arising from the could have been done better. recovery in relation to housing, health, accessibility and business. It also provides a counterpoint to the In 2011 the Government made the decision to red zone February 2016 CERA Residential Red Zone Survey earthquake-damaged land—a decision that ultimately report, which considers the situation of people who affected 8,060 properties and more than 16,000 accepted the Government’s offer for their red zoned people across Greater Christchurch. The red zoned properties. areas were assessed as having area-wide damage and/ or risks. Solutions to remediate the land in the short The report does not reflect the views of all the people to medium term were considered to be uncertain, who refused the Government offer, nor does it reflect disruptive, not timely or not cost effective.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
    [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]
  • Evaluation of the Canterbury Earthquake Appeal and Recovery
    NEW ZEALAND RED CROSS EVALUATION OF THE CANTERBURY EARTHQUAKE APPEAL & RECOVERY PROGRAMME RESEARCH REPORT Scarlett Moody Liz Morley Carl Davidson February 2017 LEAD RESEARCHER SENIOR RESEARCHER DIRECTOR OF RESEARCH Preface I would like to acknowledge those who have gone before us, I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the those who lost their lives, those injured and those who lost New Zealand Red Cross volunteers, members and staff their communities, places of work, play, learning and living that have given so generously of their time, knowledge, following the Canterbury earthquake sequence. experience and skills. I would also like to acknowledge the significant contribution of New Zealand Red Cross National It is a privilege to share with you the findings of the formal Board and the members of the Earthquake Commission, and independent evaluation of the New Zealand Red Cross who have served to provide steadfast direction and Earthquake Recovery Programme for greater Christchurch. governance to this programme of work. The leadership This evaluation brings to a close this significant programme and support of the National Society office in Wellington of work. The programme commenced following the 7.1 has been unwavering in their commitment to greater magnitude earthquake in September 2010 and the 6.3 Christchurch. We owe a debt of gratitude to so many for magnitude aftershock six months later on 22 February the care and support and commitment to these recovery 2011. Since then greater Christchurch has been subject to efforts. thousands of aftershocks making the recovery process challenging and complex. New Zealand Red Cross will The journey of recovery will continue in greater continue to support communities in greater Christchurch Christchurch for many years to come.
    [Show full text]
  • Staying in the Red Zones Te Manawaroa Ki Te Pae Whero
    Report Summary Staying in the red zones Monitoring human rights in the Canterbury earthquake recovery Te manawaroa ki te pae whero Whakaora rü whenua Waitaha he aroturuki tika tangata Dr Margaret MacDonald Dr Sally Carlton Senior Human Rights Specialist Human Rights Specialist New Zealand Human Rights Commission October 2016 He aha te mea nui o te ao? He tangata, he tangata, he tangata What is the most important thing in the world? It is the people, it is the people, it is the people Report Summary: Staying in the Red Zones Part 1 Introduction Körero whakataki The Canterbury earthquakes resulted in serious human rights challenges which the Human Rights Commission (the Commission) has been acting on and monitoring since September 2010. As a follow up to the Commission’s 2013 publication Monitoring Human Rights in the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery, this 2016 report focuses on the human rights impacts of the decision to classify certain land in Canterbury as red zoned—specifically for members of the small group of people who did not accept the Crown offer to purchase their red zoned property or vacant section, and who have continued to live on or own land in the now largely abandoned red zone areas. The report is based on results from surveys and interviews completed by people either living in or owning vacant land in Canterbury’s residential red zones (RRZs). Of the 103 people who responded to the Commission’s survey, 62 continued to live in the red zone, and 41 owned vacant land in the residential red zone in mid-2015.
    [Show full text]
  • Quake Outcasts V Minister of Canterbury Earthquake Recovery
    IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA478/2016 [2017] NZCA 332 BETWEEN QUAKE OUTCASTS Appellant AND THE MINISTER OF CANTERBURY EARTHQUAKE RECOVERY First Respondent THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE, CANTERBURY EARTHQUAKE RECOVERY AUTHORITY Second Respondent Hearing: 12 April 2017 Court: French, Miller and Winkelmann JJ Counsel: FMR Cooke QC and L E Bain for Appellant K G Stephen and P Higbee for Respondents Judgment: 1 August 2017 at 10.00 am JUDGMENT OF THE COURT A The appeal is allowed. The substantive judgment and costs judgment of the High Court are set aside. B The Minister’s decision to approve the Recovery Plan, under which nothing was offered for uninsured improvements, is declared unlawful. C Leave is reserved for the parties to file further submissions on remedy. D The respondents will pay the appellant costs for a standard appeal on a band B basis and usual disbursements. QUAKE OUTCASTS v THE MINISTER OF CANTERBURY EARTHQUAKE RECOVERY & ANOR [2017] NZCA 332 [1 August 2017] E Costs in the High Court should be fixed there in light of this judgment. ____________________________________________________________________ REASONS OF THE COURT (Given by Miller J) TABLE OF CONTENTS A short historical narrative [7] What the Supreme Court said about insurance status [11] The August 2015 offer [25] Features of the offer [35] Rationale for the offer [39] (a) Moral hazard [43] (b) Cost to the Crown [44] (c) Fairness to other owners [47] (d) Causation [49] Acceptance of the offer [51] The remaining plaintiffs and their circumstances [52] State of the red zones [55] The statutory framework and standard of review [60] The legislation [60] The standard of review [69] The judgment under appeal [76] Was the Minister entitled to discriminate by insurance status? [78] Was the August 2015 offer otherwise unreasonable? [82] What can be done now? [93] Decision [106] [1] This appeal addresses a government decision to discriminate among landowners in the Christchurch residential red zones (RRZ) when offering to purchase their properties.
    [Show full text]
  • Housing Affordability in Post-Earthquake Christchurch
    Housing Affordability in Post-Earthquake Christchurch John McDonagh, Lincoln University, Christchurch Prior to the devastating 2010-2011 Canterbury earthquakes, the city of Christchurch was already exhibiting signs of a housing affordability crisis. The causes and symptoms were similar to those being experienced in Auckland, but the substantial damage to the housing stock caused by the earthquakes added new dimensions and impetus to the problem. Large swathes of the most affordable housing stock in the east of the city were effectively destroyed by the earthquakes. In itself this would have pushed the mean house price upwards, but compounding problems exacerbated the situation. These include the price effects of reduced supply of both rented and owned housing and increased demand from both displaced residents and an influx of rebuild workers. The need for additional temporary housing while repairs were undertaken and the associated insurance pay-outs bidding up rents with improved rental returns leading to increased interest in property investment. Land supply constraints and consenting issues inhibiting the build of new housing and political infighting and uncertainty regarding the future of parts of the city leading to a flight of development activity to peripheral locations and adjoining local authorities. Concerns that the erosion of the city council rating base combined with inadequacy of insurance cover for infrastructure will lead to large rates increases, increased development costs and reduced amenities and services in future years. These and other issuers will be elaborated on in this paper with a view to exploring the way forward for affordable housing Christchurch City. 1960’s and the development of the eastern suburbs of Christchurch.
    [Show full text]
  • Residential Red Zone Offer Recovery Plan July 2015
    Residential Red Zone Offer Recovery Plan July 2015 PUB328.1507 Published in July 2015 by Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority Christchurch, New Zealand Contact Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority Private Bag 4999, Christchurch 8140 [email protected] 0800 7464 2372 toll-free www.cera.govt.nz Citation Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (2015). Residential Red Zone Offer Recovery Plan. Christchurch: Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority. ISBN 978-0-908343-04-1 (print) 978-0-908343-05-8 (online) Crown copyright © This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 New Zealand licence. You are free to copy, distribute, and adapt the work, as long as you attribute the work to the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (CERA) and abide by the other licence terms. Please note you may not use any departmental or governmental emblem, logo, or coat of arms in any way that infringes any provision of the Flags, Emblems, and Names Protection Act 1981. Use the wording ‘Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority’ in your attribution, not the CERA logo. Contents Contents .........................................................................................................................1 Executive summary .........................................................................................................2 1 Recovery Plan purpose and process .........................................................................4 2 Context .....................................................................................................................6
    [Show full text]
  • Initial Heritage Assessment for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority
    Initial Heritage Assessment for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority RICHMOND RESIDENTIAL RED ZONE Heritage New Zealand File No. 33002-278 23 February 2015 The Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (CERA), on behalf of the Crown, has property ownership and management responsibilities for land purchased in the residential red zone. Under the Policy for Government Departments Management of Historic Heritage, 2004 all Government departments are to consider heritage values when acquiring, managing and disposing of land.1 Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga has a role under Cabinet requirement of 27 August 2007 (CAB min (07) 31/1a) and 11 April 2011 (DOM (11) 28) with regard to the proposed disposal of land in order that historic heritage values can be assessed. The 2011 review of Heritage New Zealand’s Crown Land Disposal notification process encouraged Heritage New Zealand to assist government departments to prepare heritage inventories and assessments prior to disposal. For this reason, Cabinet decided that ‘land previously assessed by the disposing agency and the New Zealand Historic Places Trust [now Heritage New Zealand] to be of low heritage significance being exempt from the process.’ Note that land and improvements with identified heritage values will be subject to the normal Heritage New Zealand Notification Process at the time of Crown disposal. Please refer to the attached guidelines. This pre-assessment provides a record of identified heritage at the current time that will inform the disposal process. The attached heritage assessment provides an initial assessment of ‘known’ heritage values of the residential red zone based on information held by Heritage New Zealand. It is an initial assessment only and is not intended to provide a detailed heritage assessment.
    [Show full text]