DOCSLIB.ORG

The Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (A) 2016-189.1

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (A) 2016-189.1 ANZSOG Case Program From emergency to urgency: the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (A) 2016-189.1 On 29 March 2011, the New Zealand Government announced the creation of a new government department. To be known as the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority or CERA (pronounced Sarah), it would have extensive powers to override legislation and regulations deemed to stand in the way of a speedy recovery from the earthquake that had devastated the city of Christchurch, causing 185 deaths, a month earlier. The Canterbury Earthquake Recovery (CER) Act, which would pass with multi-party support, outlined a formidable list of tasks for CERA. These included ensuring that greater Christchurch would make a ‘focussed, timely and expedited recovery’ from damage and destruction on an epic scale, enabling community participation in the planning. CERA was to coordinate and direct the repair and rebuilding of affected communities, and restore their ‘social, economic, cultural and environmental wellbeing’. In order to achieve this in its five-year life, the CER Act gave CERA the final say on where, how and in what priority both demolition and reconstruction could take place; CERA could acquire land compulsorily and enter private property, and prosecute people who failed to comply with directions given under the Act.1 The establishment of CERA as a government department meant that its Chief Executive would report directly to its Minister. The Hon Gerry Brownlee, Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery, third-ranked in Cabinet, was a long-serving Christchurch MP. This case was written by Janet Tyson for Associate Professor Michael Di Francesco, the Australia and New Zealand School of Government. It has been prepared from published materials as a basis for class discussion rather than to illustrate either effective or ineffective handling of a managerial situation. Cases are not necessarily intended as a complete account of the events described. While every reasonable effort has been made to ensure accuracy at the time of publication, subsequent developments may mean that certain details have since changed. This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Licence, except for logos, trademarks, photographs and other content marked as supplied by third parties. No licence is given in relation to third party material. Version 05092016. Distributed by the Case Program, The Australia and New Zealand School of Government, www.anzsog.edu.au 1 Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority, Briefing to the Incoming Minister, December 2011 pp23-25 (hereafter Briefing 2011). The unprecedented recommendation for a government department was made because the scale of the situation called for a high degree of central control to co-ordinate the diverse parties to successful recovery: local and central government, residents of greater Christchurch, Ngāi Tahu, business interests and the private sector.2 It was a departure from usual international practice, which was to build on existing institutional frameworks to set up a stand-alone agency or statutory authority for disaster recovery.3 As if to underline the point, major New Zealand government departments were already represented in Christchurch, for example the Inland Revenue Department with 800 staff, mostly based in a multi-storey building no longer habitable after 22 February, or the Ministry of Social Development which lost the use of 13 of its 25 premises. In addition, the 25 members of the Christchurch Government Leaders Group had been active in response to the September quake. Senior State Services Commission (SSC) officials, in their paper to Cabinet, had considered two options for post-quake governance: either a crown agency, reporting through a board and therefore at arms’ length to the Minister, or a new government department.4 The direct relationship between departmental chief executive and minister would enable the speed essential for successful recovery. The officials were well aware of issues that had developed with the governance arrangements established after the earthquake of 4 September 2010, which caused extensive property and infrastructure damage, but no loss of life (Exhibit 1 is a timeline). Canterbury was a proudly self-reliant community. Cantabrian sensitivities about intervention by central government in Wellington had been heightened since the appointment of Commissioners to replace Environment Canterbury, their elected regional council, in May 2010.5 Immediately after 4 September, the affected local councils (Selwyn and Waimakariri Districts as well as Christchurch City) and citizen groups indicated they were ready to lead recovery efforts once the civil defence emergency was lifted. The Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery (CERR) Act 2010 brought central government into the mix, and some immediate concern about the extent of powers provided to Gerry Brownlee. The Minister could use Orders in Council 6 to override legislation such as the Resource Management Act in order to speed up rebuilding and recovery. The three councils would plan and implement their recovery, with both Minister and councils advised by the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Commission (CERC) (Exhibit 2 is a glossary of organisations and entities mentioned in this case study). At the local body elections in October 2010, Christchurch Mayor Bob Parker, who had seemed heading for heavy defeat before the earthquake struck, was resoundingly re-elected. He had been a highly effective communicator in the early days of the response. Progress on recovery planning then seemed to stall (especially by comparison with Selwyn and Waimakariri) while the City Council returned to business as usual. There was widespread confusion about the role and function of CERC. Aftershocks were continuing, and on 26 December 2010, a 4.9 quake rattled Boxing Day shoppers in the city. In early February 2011, The Press ran a week-long series of articles describing frustration, confusion, and poor communication about progress on recovery. There were calls for the Minister to use his powers to get things moving faster and to introduce an earthquake ‘tsar’ with a dedicated 2 Cabinet Paper 1: Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: Proposed Governance Arrangements. 28 March 2011, p1 (Hereafter Cabinet Paper 1) Ngāi Tahu is the principal Maori tribe in Canterbury. 3 Brookie, R. Governing the Recovery from the Canterbury Earthquakes 2010-11: the debate over institutional design, Victoria University Institute of Governance and Policy Studies, Working Paper 12/01 June 2012. 4 Cabinet Paper 1, p4. 5 The background to this is covered in ANZSOG Case Study The Canterbury Water Management Strategy: smart management of collaborative processes 2016-186. 6 An Order in Council is made without the approval of parliament. This means that legislative changes can be made and assented quickly (Brookie, p21). 2016-189.1 Version 05092016 2 www.anzsog.edu.au local leadership role.7 At a meeting on 11 February, Brownlee urged people to have patience with the huge job to be done.8 The killer quake Just over a week later, these concerns were put in context. A state of national emergency was declared in the immediate aftermath of the 22 February earthquakes9, with the Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management again the governing authority in Christchurch. The following days and weeks unleashed a nationwide response, as the loss of life and the scale of damage to infrastructure and property became evident. Every part of the Christchurch community was disrupted: the lives of the residents who worked, used or provided services in it: schools and universities, hospitals and health providers, sports and cultural facilities. Tourism, international education and inner city retail businesses were hard hit. It was estimated that, in the central business district alone, some 1200 buildings would have to be demolished. The iconic Christ Church Cathedral standing shorn of its spire in Cathedral Square was a potent visual symbol of the quake’s impact. Less obvious but more significant for efforts to rebuild the city was the extensive land damage, worse than any other earthquake site in the world.10 Uplift of the water table put new areas at risk of flooding, while at least one of the yacht clubs based around the Avon and Heathcote Estuary had to relocate to find water deep enough to sail in. Vast volumes (400,000 tonnes) of liquefaction11 spewed out on the flat land of the city, while collapsing cliffs and unstable boulders threatened the surrounding Port Hills. All sectors of the community found common purpose in responding to the exceptional circumstances created by the quake. Non-government agencies like the Red Cross and groups like the Student Volunteer Army and the Farmy Army came out in force, their efforts supported by volunteers from around the country and overseas. Urgently passed Orders in Council enabled changes to information sharing, planning, transport and taxation laws. The usual rules and bureaucratic processes were suspended as the public service, by general consensus, excelled itself (Exhibit 3), inspired by Minister Brownlee’s directive not to wait for permission to do what was needed. Mayor Bob Parker, in his hi- vis parka, was everywhere. Prime Minister John Key, raised in Christchurch, was a frequent visitor, along with all other local MPs. International agencies flew in to assist with search and rescue and essential services such as policing.12 Gerry Brownlee, flown over the devastated
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Mw 6.3 Christchurch, New Zealand Earthquake of 22 February 2011
    THE MW 6.3 CHRISTCHURCH, NEW ZEALAND EARTHQUAKE OF 22 FEBRUARY 2011 A FIELD REPORT BY EEFIT THE CHRISTCHURCH, NEW ZEALAND EARTHQUAKE OF 22 FEBRUARY 2011 A FIELD REPORT BY EEFIT Sean Wilkinson Matthew Free Damian Grant David Boon Sarah Paganoni Anna Mason Elizabeth Williams Stuart Fraser Jenny Haskell Earthquake Field Investigation Team Institution of Structural Engineers 47 - 58 Bastwick Street London EC1V 3PS Tel 0207235 4535 Fax 0207235 4294 Email: [email protected] June 2011 The Mw 6.2 Christchurch Earthquake of 22 February 2011 1 CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 3 1. INTRODUCTION 4 2. REGIONAL TECTONIC AND GEOLOGICAL SETTING 6 3. SEISMOLOGICAL ASPECTS 12 4. NEW ZEALAND BUILDING STOCK AND DESIGN PRACTICE 25 5. PERFORMANCE OF BUILDINGS 32 6. PERFORMANCE OF LIFELINES 53 7. GEOTECHNICAL ASPECTS 62 8. DISASTER MANAGEMENT 96 9. ECONOMIC LOSSES AND INSURANCE 108 10. CONCLUSIONS 110 11. REFERENCES 112 APPENDIX A: DETAILED RESIDENTIAL DAMAGE SURVEY 117 The Mw 6.2 Christchurch Earthquake of 22 February 2011 2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors would like to express their thanks to the many individuals and organisations that have assisted with the EEFIT mission to Christchurch and in the preparation of this report. We thank Arup for enabling Matthew Free to attend this mission and the British Geological Survey for allowing David Boon to attend. We would also like to thank the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council for providing funding for Sean Wilkinson, Damian Grant, Elizabeth Paganoni and Sarah Paganoni to join the team. Their continued support in enabling UK academics to witness the aftermath of earthquakes and the effects on structures and the communities they serve is gratefully acknowledged.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 NEWS Colmar Brunton Poll 22 – 26 May 2021
    1 NEWS Colmar Brunton Poll 22 – 26 May 2021 Attention: Television New Zealand Contact: (04) 913-3000 Release date: 27 May 2021 Level One 46 Sale Street, Auckland CBD PO Box 33690 Takapuna Auckland 0740 Ph: (09) 919-9200 Level 9, Legal House 101 Lambton Quay PO Box 3622, Wellington 6011 Ph: (04) 913-3000 www.colmarbrunton.co.nz Contents Contents .......................................................................................................................................................... 1 Methodology summary ................................................................................................................................... 2 Summary of results .......................................................................................................................................... 3 Key political events ................................................................ .......................................................................... 4 Question order and wording ............................................................................................................................ 5 Party vote ........................................................................................................................................................ 6 Preferred Prime Minister ................................................................................................................................. 8 Public Sector wage freeze .............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Sept-Oct 2011 Gtr Progress
    Greening the Rubble Project September-October 2011 News Monthly progress report from Christchurch Project Worker to Living Streets Aotearoa Executive (managers) and to 'Make Shift' Steering Group (advisors, including CCC.) These mid-month reports coincide with financial reporting to LSA, and aim to brief the participants in Make-Shift Steering Group and Strategy meetings, set for Tuesday 25 October. Wet weather has curtailed a few outdoor sessions for volunteers, but overall this has been a productive period. We have new volunteers coming forward most weeks, additional sponsors secured and more sites being offered than we can work on at once, so a wait list is emerging. In Sept - our daffodils on Victoria Street and at right - Headlines are: de-construction of Victoria Green has begun, with relocation of gabions under Kowhai flower buds look healthy although the way to three sites; landscape designs are prepared for these three sites and commissioned for transplanted trees have lost many leaves after their a new roadside trio near the Lichfield Temporary Bus Exchange; outdoor furniture has been move to planters. Kowhai subsequently in flower. built for us by Hagley Community College students; and we are planning contributions of materials to two sites being organised by others: trees and path surfacing for the landscape at ‘Restart’ container shops in Cashel Mall (Tony Milne for Lincoln Uni.) and turf for a summer artwork installation site in Sydenham (Peter Majendie, with CCC). Over $1,300 more has arrived in donations in September through the ‘Silty’ block sales by Urban Paving Ltd. An additional site in Ferry Road has been informally surveyed and feasibility assessment started.
    [Show full text]
  • A Transcript of Prime Minister John Key's Speech to the Canterbury Employers' Chamber of Commerce Function, 2Nd July 2015. Good
    A transcript of Prime Minister John Key's speech to the Canterbury Employers' Chamber of Commerce function, 2nd July 2015. Good afternoon. Thank you Peter for that warm welcome and for the Chamber's hosting of this event. It's good to see so many of you here today. Can I start by acknowledging Mayor Lianne Dalziel and other local body representatives from around the region. Just as central government has to make some tough decisions and trade-offs, so too do councils as we work together to rebuild this city. Together, we're making significant progress. Although, of course, there is still much to do. I'd also like to acknowledge my ministerial colleagues Gerry Brownlee, Amy Adams and Nicky Wagner. Gerry has provided strong leadership in overseeing what continues to be one of New Zealand's largest and most complex undertakings. Most recently he has been turning his mind to where we go following the expiry of the special earthquake recovery laws next April. I'll have some more to say about that in a few minutes. As we've said before, the estimated cost of the rebuild is around $40 billion. As a proportion of the economy, this makes it one of the most expensive natural disasters in the developed world. So thanks to all of you here who have worked so hard since the first earthquake in September 2010. I want to start today by talking about the economy and the significant contribution Canterbury makes to it. A strong and growing economy allows us to provide essential public services like hospitals and schools, and support our most vulnerable families.
    [Show full text]
  • Hagley Oval Section 71 Proposal - Further Information Available
    SUBMISSION ON S71 CHANGES TO THE DISTRICT PLAN - HAGLEY OVAL. My name iss9(2)(a I was part of a group that took part in the Environment Court EC and attended each day for 5 weeks. I learned during that case and subseq uently, to be wary of anything Canterbury Cricket Trust CCT says and even more so what they don't say. I have put in a submission on behalf of HO H, concentrating on amenity. This is my personal submission dealing with the proposed changes requested by CCT and their impact on Hagley Park and its other users. I believe that the use of S71 in this instance is wrong. The ability to question expert evidence and present opposing expert evidence is essential in this sensitive proposal. The RMA is the vehicle t hat can provide this. The minister is no doubt aware of the section in the letter of expectation that advises her regarding the use of S71, where the RMA could be used instead. Also the amendment to the Regenerate act proposed by the current minister Megan Wood and passed unanimously by Parliament protecting Hagley Park from the Regen Act. https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/hansard This states: "But what we are saying is that when it comes to Hagley Park and the protections that have been built up over that piece of land, it actually is time to return to business as usual. When it comes to that particular taonga in the centre of our city, we do need to be able to say, it is if the earthquakes never happened and it is as if the bespoke legislation that is put in place to aid our recovery and our regeneration does not exist...." And..
    [Show full text]
  • Minutes of Greater Christchurch Partnership Committee
    Greater Christchurch Partnership Committee OPEN MINUTES Date: Friday 9 April 2021 Time: 9.03am Venue: Council Chamber, Environment Canterbury, 200 Tuam Street, Christchurch Present Chairperson Jim Palmer Members Mayor Lianne Dalziel , Christchurch City Council Councillor Mike Davidson , Christchurch City Council Councillor Sara Templeton , Christchurch City Council Chairperson Jenny Hughey , Environment Canterbury Councillor Phil Clearwater , Environment Canterbury Councillor Grant Edge , Environment Canterbury Mayor Sam Broughton , Selwyn District Council Councillor Malcolm Lyall , Selwyn District Council Councillor Sophie McInnes , Selwyn District Council Mayor Dan Gordon , Waimakariri District Council Councillor Niki Mealings , Waimakariri District Council Councillor Neville Atkinson , Waimakariri District Council Jane Huria , Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu Sir John Hansen , Canterbury District Health Board (Non-Voting Member) Ian Duncan, New Zealand Transport Agency 9 April 2021 Nathaniel Heslop Committee & Hearings Advisor 941 6444 [email protected] www.ccc.govt.nz Greater Christchurch Partnership Committee 09 April 2021 The agenda was dealt with in the following order. 1. Apologies / Ngā Whakapāha Committee Resolved GCPC/2021/00009 That the apologies received from Gail Gordon for absence be accepted. Mayor Dan Gordon/Councillor Phil Clearwater Carried 2. Declarations of Interest / Ngā Whakapuaki Aronga There were no declarations of interest recorded. 3. Deputations by Appointment / Ngā Huinga Whakaritenga There were no deputations by appointment. 4. Confirmation of Previous Minutes / Te Whakaāe o te hui o mua Committee Resolved GCPC/2021/00010 That the open and public excluded minutes of the Greater Christchurch Partnership Committee meeting held on Friday, 12 March 2021 be confirmed. Councillor Neville Atkinson/Mayor Lianne Dalziel Carried Sir John Hansen left the meeting at 9.25am and returned at 10.04am during discussion of Item 5.
    [Show full text]
  • Greater Christchurch Earthquake Recovery: Transition to Regeneration Draft Transition Recovery Plan July 2015
    Greater Christchurch Earthquake Recovery: Transition to Regeneration Draft Transition Recovery Plan July 2015 Public comments close 5pm, Thursday 30 July 2015 PUB331.1507 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). Greater Christchurch Earthquake Recovery: Transition to Regeneration. Christchurch: Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority. ISBN ISBN 978-0-908343-02-7 (Print) ISBN 978-0-908343-03-4 (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. Foreword Recovery has now reached the point where it is appropriate for central government to step away gradually from its leadership role and move more towards a role of support for local institutions in greater Christchurch. An Advisory Board on Transition to Long Term Recovery Arrangements was established in December 2014, chaired by Rt Hon Dame Jenny Shipley, to provide advice to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery on transitioning the responsibilities and powers of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (CERA).
    [Show full text]
  • Evidence 048 the Crown Ben
    BEFORE THE CHRISTCHURCH REPLACEMENT DISTRICT PLAN HEARINGS PANEL IN THE MATTER of the Resource Management Act 1991 and the Canterbury Earthquake (Christchurch Replacement District Plan) Order 2014 AND the Christchurch Replacement District Plan STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE OF BENESIA DENISE SMITH ON BEHALF OF THE CROWN Government response to earthquake events the 25th day of November 2014 Barristers and Solicitors Christchurch Solicitor Acting: Cedric Carranceja / Jenna Silcock Email: [email protected] / [email protected] Tel 64 3 3791 747 Fax 64 3 3795 659 PO Box 322 DX WX11135 Christchurch 8140 Counsel Acting: Paul Radich QC Tel 64 4 974 5951 Fax 64 4 974 5955 PO Box 10731 Wellington 6143 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1 2. SCOPE ............................................................................................................ 1 2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................. 2 3. SEPTEMBER 2010 EARTHQUAKE ................................................................ 2 4. FEBRUARY 2011 EARTHQUAKES ................................................................. 4 5. CREATION OF CERA ..................................................................................... 6 6. CER ACT ......................................................................................................... 9 7. PLANNING FOR RECOVERY ......................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Unsettling Recovery: Natural Disaster Response and the Politics of Contemporary Settler Colonialism
    UNSETTLING RECOVERY: NATURAL DISASTER RESPONSE AND THE POLITICS OF CONTEMPORARY SETTLER COLONIALISM A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA BY STEVEN ANDREW KENSINGER IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY DR. DAVID LIPSET, ADVISER JULY 2019 Steven Andrew Kensinger, 2019 © Acknowledgements The fieldwork on which this dissertation is based was funded by a Doctoral Dissertation Fieldwork Grant No. 8955 awarded by the Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research. I also want to thank Dr. Robert Berdahl and the Berdahl family for endowing the Daphne Berdahl Memorial Fellowship which provided funds for two preliminary fieldtrips to New Zealand in preparation for the longer fieldwork period. I also received funding while in the field from the University of Minnesota Graduate School through a Thesis Research Travel Grant. I want to thank my advisor, Dr. David Lipset, and the members of my dissertation committee, Dr. Hoon Song, Dr. David Valentine, and Dr. Margaret Werry for their help and guidance in preparing the dissertation. In the Department of Anthropology at the University of Minnesota, Dr. William Beeman, Dr. Karen Ho, and Dr. Karen-Sue Taussig offered personal and professional support. I am grateful to Dr. Kieran McNulty for offering me a much-needed funding opportunity in the final stages of dissertation writing. A special thanks to my colleagues Dr. Meryl Puetz-Lauer and Dr. Timothy Gitzen for their support and encouragement. Dr. Carol Lauer graciously offered to read and comment on several of the chapters. My fellow graduate students and writing-accountability partners Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Strategy and Policy Committee Report Back on Attendance at the Emergency Management Conference
    STRATEGY AND POLICY COMMITTEE 7 MARCH 2013 REPORT 5 (1215/52/IM) REPORT BACK ON ATTENDANCE AT THE EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE – FEBRUARY 2012 1. Purpose of Report To report back to all Councillors on the Conference including the subjects covered and an opinion of the value of attendance by Elected Members. 2. Purpose of Report It is recommended that the Strategy and Policy Committee 1. Receive the information. 3. Details of the Conference On February 22nd 2011 I was attending an Emergency Management Conference. Guest speakers spoke of how lucky Christchurch was to have survived the previous September 4th quake with no loss of life. We broke for lunch and at 12.51pm Christchurch suffered another major earthquake. This time it was not so lucky and it became obvious, from the experts in the room that this would be serious. The conference was cancelled and I went home to watch the grim news unfold on television. In February 2012 the conference reconvened. This time there was much to discuss. I was unfortunately not able to attend all sessions as a fellow councillor who was to also attend and do some of the sessions was not able to be there. The first day started with keynote speakers: Clive Manley, head of Auckland Council Civil Defence, Hon Chris Tremain Minister of Civil Defence and Mayor Bob Parker. Bob told us 71,000 homes were affected, 40,000 chemical toilets were distributed, half a million tons of silt was moved and $1billion of damage was done to the waste water system alone. After morning tea we heard from Dr Richard Sharpe of BECA.
    [Show full text]
  • Cathedral Working Group Recommendation Report
    CATHEDRAL WORKING GROUP RECOMMENDATION REPORT NOVEMBER 2016 Released by the Minister supporting Greater Christchurch Regeneration This document and its contents are confidential and shall not be distributed, published, copied or reproduced without the express written permission of the Minister Supporting Greater Christchurch Regeneration and the Church Property Trustees. VERSION ISSUE DATE REASON FOR ISSUE AUTHOR APPROVED FOR ISSUE 1 28.10.16 Draft for Review Bianca Hurrell, RCP Marcus Read, RCP 2 31.10.16 Draft to include Bianca Hurrell, RCP Marcus Read, RCP comments from Working Group Chair Regeneration 3 01.11.16 Edited and Proofed Anna Komink, Axiom Marcus Read, RCP Final Draft to CWG / Bianca Hurrell, RCP 4 07.11.16 Updates following Bianca Hurrell, RCP / Marcus Read, RCP / CWG meeting Anna Komink, Axiom Geoff Dangerfield, CWG Christchurch 5 21.11.16 Updates as Geoff Dangerfield, Geoff Dangerfield, provided to CWG CWG / Marcus Read, CWG / Marcus Read, for review RCP RCP 6 24.11.16 Final Draft providedGreater Geoff Dangerfield, Marcus Read, RCP / to CWG for review CWG / Marcus Read, Geoff Dangerfield, RCP CWG 7 25.11.16 Final Copy Geoff Dangerfield, Geoff Dangerfield, CWG / Marcus Read, CWG / Marcus Read, RCP RCP supporting Minister the by Released ii CONTENTS 1.0 Executive Summary 1 2.0 Recommendations 7 3.0 Introduction 9 4.0 Background and Context 12 5.0 Values and Requirements of the ChristChurch Cathedral 13 6.0 Heritage and Archaeological Review Regeneration16 7.0 Structural Review 21 8.0 Regeneration of the Square 27 9.0 Delivery
    [Show full text]
  • Gccrs Panel Bios
    GCCRS PANEL BIOS Alan Dallas CPEng CMEngNZ Alan was at an engineering forensics and seismic assessment seminar in the Christchurch CBD on 22 February 2011, subsequently serving as a CBD building assessor and team leader. He joined Batchelar McDougall Consulting (BMC) in August 2011 and has since worked on the assessment and repair of a range of buildings. Alan also flew to Kaikoura on 15 November 2016 to inspect buildings and bridges. Ana Pereira CPEng Ana is civil engineer with a geotechnical specialization, with over 10 years of experience in the geotechnical field. In Portugal, Ana was a site engineer managing construction of piles, micropiles and anchors for many different developments. These included residential and commercial buildings, roads and railways in different geological settings, including alluvial soils near waterways. She also managed several excavations for underground car parking in urban areas. Her experience in New Zealand, from 2012 onwards, is based on seismic hazard assessment, foundation, ground improvement design and slope stability analysis for residential and commercial buildings and bridges. Andrew Marriott CPEng CMEngNZ IntPE(NZ) Andrew has more than 30 years’ experience in structural and civil engineering, including designing a wide range of structures in New Zealand and the United Kingdom. He is currently a Principal and Director of Batchelar McDougall Consulting. Andrew has specialised in heritage engineering and temporary works designs as well as maintaining his competency in general structures ranging from residential through to multi-storey commercial developments. Andrew volunteered for Civil Defence as a Chartered Professional Engineer following the 22 February 2011 Christchurch earthquake and was lead engineer in the heritage area.
    [Show full text]