Search

found 34 results

Images for Building laws; more images...

Images, UC QuakeStudies

Damage to the Edgeware Law building on Colombo Street. A brick wall has collapsed into the carpark exposing a bathroom.

Research papers, University of Canterbury Library

This paper presents the preliminary conclusions of the first stage of Wellington Case Study project (Regulating For Resilience in an Earthquake Vulnerable City) being undertaken by the Disaster Law Research Group at the University of Canterbury Law School. This research aims to map the current regulatory environment around improving the seismic resilience of the urban built environment. This work provides the basis for the second stage of the project which will map the regulatory tools onto the reality of the current building stock in Wellington. Using a socio-legal methodology, the current research examines the regulatory framework around seismic resilience for existing buildings in New Zealand, with a particularly focus on multi-storey in the Wellington CBD. The work focusses both on the operation and impact of the formal seismic regulatory tools open to public regulators (under the amended Building Act) as other non-seismic regulatory tools. As well as examining the formal regulatory frame, the work also provides an assessment of the interactions between other non-building acts (such as Health and Safety at Work Act 2015) on the requirements of seismic resilience. Other soft-law developments (particularly around informal building standards) are also examined. The final output of this work will presents this regulatory map in a clear and easily accessible manner and provide an assessment of the suitability of this at times confusing and patchy legal environment as Wellington moves towards becoming a resilient city. The final conclusion of this work will be used to specifically examine the ability of Wellington to make this transition under the current regulatory environment as phase two of the Wellington Case Study project.

Research Papers, Lincoln University

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to identify through the application of Actor Network Theory (ANT) the issues and impediments to the implementation of mandatory seismic retrofitting policies proposed by the New Zealand Government. In particular the tension between the heritage protection objectives contained in the Resource Management Act 1991 and the earthquake mitigation measures contained in the Building Act 2004 are examined. Design/methodology/approach - The paper uses a case study approach based on the Harcourts Building in Wellington New Zealand and the case law relating to attempts to demolish this particular building. Use is made of ANT as a 'lens' to identify and study the controversies around mandatory seismic retrofitting of heritage buildings. The concept of translation is used to draw network diagrams.

Images, UC QuakeStudies

Students sit outside the InTentCity 6.3 Cafe, which was set up in a tent in the Law car park while University of Canterbury buildings were closed for structural testing. The photographer comments, "The University restarts its teaching, and the techies in e-learning move out of NZi3".

Images, UC QuakeStudies

The InTentCity 6.3 Cafe, which was set up in a tent in the Law car park while University of Canterbury buildings were closed for structural testing. The photographer comments, "The University restarts its teaching, and the techies in e-learning move out of NZi3. New cafe - InTentCity. (Get it...?)".

Audio, Radio New Zealand

A report into why Statistics House failed in the November earthquake has revealed a design flaw in the building, and the Government says all buildings nationwide like Statistics House will now need checking. Christchurch man Jeremy Teaguea wants to overturn the law making wearing a bike helment compulsory. Former cyclone Debbie will make her presence felt here over the next week. Weatherman Richard Green tells us what to expect. Going up for Labour and a downward turn in the polls for National. Is it really because of Jacinda Ardern and Bill English?

Research papers, University of Canterbury Library

This paper discusses the seismic performance of the standard RC office building in Christchurch that is given as a structural design example in NZS3101, the concrete structures seismic standard in New Zealand. Firstly the push-over analysis was carried out to evaluate the lateral load carrying capacity of the RC building and then to compare that carrying capacity with the Japanese standard law. The estimated figures showed that the carrying capacity of the New Zealand standard RC office building of NZS3101:2006 was about one third of Japanese demanded carrying capacity. Secondly, time history analysis of the multi-mass system was performed to estimate the maximum response story drift angle using recorded ground motions. Finally, a three-dimensional analysis was carried out to estimate the response of the building to the 22nd February, 2011 Canterbury earthquake. The following outcomes were obtained. 1) The fundamental period of the example RC building is more than twice that of Japanese simplified calculation, 2) The example building’s maximum storey drift angle reached 2.5% under the recorded ground motions. The main purpose of this work is to provide background information of seismic design practice for the reconstruction of Christchurch.

Images, UC QuakeStudies

Students sit outside the InTentCity 6.3 Cafe, which was set up in a tent in the Law car park while University of Canterbury buildings were closed for structural testing. The photographer comments, "The University restarts its teaching, and the techies in e-learning move out of NZi3. The cafe has an outside seating area under the trees".

Images, Canterbury Museum

One landscape colour digital photograph taken on 19 November 2011 showing buildings on London Street. Visible in the photograph (left to right) are Bells Pharmacy - relocated into a converted house with law firm MacTodd on the upper floor, Portico (gift shop), Tommy Changs Cafe, and the edge of the Lyttelton Petanque Club Gap Filler initiative. ...

Audio, Radio New Zealand

The families of those who died in the CTV building's collapse during the Christchurch Earthquake in February of 2011 are vowing to continue their Fight For Justice after The Independent Police Conduct Authority rejected their complaint about the Police Investigation . The Police decided 3 years ago not to lay charges against the building's designer. Yesterday the families announced that the IPCA, the body that advised the Police, had told them that it had no jurisdiction over Crown Law. Families spokesperson, Maan Alkaisi, told reporter Conan Young that they will continue to push for somebody to be held to account. He wants a retired judge to take another look at the decision not to prosecute.

Images, Alexander Turnbull Library

An exceedingly large 'Gerry' Brownlee, the Minister for Earthquake Recovery, rises from a chair, holding a briefcase labeled 'CERA' and calling for 'Bob' Parker, the mayor of Christchurch. The thin Parker was flattened against Brownlee's enormous rear, when Brownlee sat on the chair. Brownlee and Parker had a strained relationship, with the government taking an increasing amount of control in local decision making. After ongoing assurances by Parker that Christchurch City Council would meet all of International Accreditation New Zealand's requirements on issuing building consents, Brownlee announced in June 2013 without Parker's prior knowledge that the authority had withdrawn its accreditation. Quantity: 1 digital cartoon(s).

Research papers, Victoria University of Wellington

“One of the most basic and fundamental questions in urban master planning and building regulations is ‘how to secure common access to sun, light and fresh air?” (Stromann-Andersen & Sattrup, 2011).  Daylighting and natural ventilation can have significant benefits in office buildings. Both of these ‘passive’ strategies have been found to reduce artificial lighting and air-conditioning energy consumption by as much as 80% (Ministry for the Environment, 2008); (Brager, et al., 2007). Access to daylight and fresh air can also be credited with improved occupant comfort and health, which can lead to a reduction of employee absenteeism and an increase of productivity (Sustainability Victoria, 2008).  In the rebuild of Christchurch central city, following the earthquakes of 2010 and 2011, Cantabrians have expressed a desire for a low-rise, sustainable city, with open spaces and high performance buildings (Christchurch City Council, 2011). With over 80% of the central city being demolished, a unique opportunity to readdress urban form and create a city that provides all buildings with access to daylight and fresh air exists.  But a major barrier to wide-spread adoption of passive buildings in New Zealand is their dependence on void space to deliver daylight and fresh air – void space which could otherwise be valuable built floor space. Currently, urban planning regulations in Christchurch prioritize density, allowing and even encouraging low performance compact buildings.  Considering this issue of density, this thesis aimed to determine which urban form and building design changes would have the greatest effect on building performance in Central City Christchurch.  The research proposed and parametrically tested modifications of the current compact urban form model, as well as passive building design elements. Proposed changes were assessed in three areas: energy consumption, indoor comfort and density. Three computer programs were used: EnergyPlus was the primary tool, simulating energy consumption and thermal comfort. Radiance/Daysim was used to provide robust daylighting calculations and analysis. UrbaWind enabled detailed consideration of the urban wind environment for reliable natural ventilation predictions.  Results found that, through a porous urban form and utilization of daylight and fresh air via simple windows, energy consumption could be reduced as much as 50% in buildings. With automatic modulation of windows and lighting, thermal and visual comfort could be maintained naturally for the majority of the occupied year. Separation of buildings by as little as 2m enabled significant energy improvements while having only minimal impact on individual property and city densities.  Findings indicated that with minor alterations to current urban planning laws, all buildings could have common access to daylight and fresh air, enabling them to operate naturally, increasing energy efficiency and resilience.

Images, eqnz.chch.2010

Another city walk around, this time with my brother-in-law from Auckland. Also went to the Quake City exhibition in the city organised by the Canterbury Museum. First fine day for a while. For 36 years I worked in a now gone building where that red car is parked (on the left). and would have walked this route thousands of times, yet now it is...

Audio, Radio New Zealand

Topics - scientists are wondering how the light gets out. Maybe there is a cosmic crack in everything, because in the Journal Astrophysical Letters it is noted that there is a huge deficit of light in the universe. Owners of heritage apartments in Auckland face becoming "impoverished" according to a high-profile real estate figure, because of new laws around earthquake strengthening. Martin Dunn of City Sales says the Building Amendment Bill is "overkill". He says those trying to sell heritage apartments are having a difficult time because of the new rules. Jim Anderton, has again raised the issue of whether the Christchurch Cathedral has to come down.

Research papers, University of Canterbury Library

The Canterbury earthquakes of 2010 and 2011 have shone the spotlight on a number of tax issues. These issues, and in particular lessons learned from them, will be relevant for revenue authorities, policymakers and taxpayers alike in the broader context of natural disasters. Issues considered by this paper include the tax treatment of insurance monies. For example, building owners will receive pay-outs for destroyed assets and buildings which have been depreciated. Where the insurance payment is more than the adjusted tax value, there will be a taxable "gain on sale" (or depreciation recovery income). If the building owner uses those insurance proceeds to purchase a replacement asset, legislative amendments specifically enacted following the earthquakes provide that rollover relief of the depreciation recovery income is available. The tax treatment of expenditure to seismically strengthen a building is another significant issue faced by building owners. Case law has determined that this expenditure will usually be capital expenditure. In the past such costs could be capitalised to the building and depreciated accordingly. However, since the 2011-2012 income year owners have been prohibited from claiming depreciation on buildings and therefore currently no deduction is available for such strengthening expenditure (whether immediate or deferred). This has significant potential implications for landlords throughout New Zealand facing significant seismic retrofit costs. Incentives, or some form of financial support, whether delivered through the tax system or some other mechanism may be required. International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) require insurance proceeds, including reimbursement for expenditure of a capital nature, be reported as income while expenditure itself is not recorded as a current period expense. This has the effect of overstating current income and creating a larger variation between reported income for accounting and taxation purposes. Businesses have obligations to maintain certain business records for tax purposes. Reconstructing records destroyed by a natural disaster depends on how the information was originally stored. The earthquakes have demonstrated the benefits of ‘off-site’ (outside Canterbury) storage, in particular electronic storage. This paper considers these issues and the Inland Revenue Department (Inland Revenue) Standard Practice Statement which deals with inter alia retention of business records in electronic format and offshore record storage. Employer provided accommodation is treated as income to the benefitting employee. A recent amendment to the Income Tax Act 2007 retrospectively provides that certain employer provided accommodation is exempt from tax. The time aspect of these rules is extended where the employee is involved in the Canterbury rebuild and comes from outside the region.

Research papers, The University of Auckland Library

In September 2010 and February 2011 the Canterbury region of New Zealand was struck by two powerful earthquakes, registering magnitude 7.1 and 6.3 respectively on the Richter scale. The second earthquake was centred 10 kilometres south-east of the centre of Christchurch (the region’s capital and New Zealand’s third most populous urban area, with approximately 360,000 residents) at a depth of five kilometres. 185 people were killed, making it the second deadliest natural disaster in New Zealand’s history. (66 people were killed in the collapse of one building alone, the six-storey Canterbury Television building.) The earthquake occurred during the lunch hour, increasing the number of people killed on footpaths and in buses and cars by falling debris. In addition to the loss of life, the earthquake caused catastrophic damage to both land and buildings in Christchurch, particularly in the central business district. Many commercial and residential buildings collapsed in the tremors; others were damaged through soil liquefaction and surface flooding. Over 1,000 buildings in the central business district were eventually demolished because of safety concerns, and an estimated 70,000 people had to leave the city after the earthquakes because their homes were uninhabitable. The New Zealand Government declared a state of national emergency, which stayed in force for ten weeks. In 2014 the Government estimated that the rebuild process would cost NZ$40 billion (approximately US$27.3 billion, a cost equivalent to 17% of New Zealand’s annual GDP). Economists now estimate it could take the New Zealand economy between 50 and 100 years to recover. The earthquakes generated tens of thousands of insurance claims, both against private home insurance companies and against the New Zealand Earthquake Commission, a government-owned statutory body which provides primary natural disaster insurance to residential property owners in New Zealand. These ranged from claims for hundreds of millions of dollars concerning the local port and university to much smaller claims in respect of the thousands of residential homes damaged. Many of these insurance claims resulted in civil proceedings, caused by disputes about policy cover, the extent of the damage and the cost and/or methodology of repairs, as well as failures in communication and delays caused by the overwhelming number of claims. Disputes were complicated by the fact that the Earthquake Commission provides primary insurance cover up to a monetary cap, with any additional costs to be met by the property owner’s private insurer. Litigation funders and non-lawyer claims advocates who took a percentage of any insurance proceeds also soon became involved. These two factors increased the number of parties involved in any given claim and introduced further obstacles to resolution. Resolving these disputes both efficiently and fairly was (and remains) central to the rebuild process. This created an unprecedented challenge for the justice system in Christchurch (and New Zealand), exacerbated by the fact that the Christchurch High Court building was itself damaged in the earthquakes, with the Court having to relocate to temporary premises. (The High Court hears civil claims exceeding NZ$200,000 in value (approximately US$140,000) or those involving particularly complex issues. Most of the claims fell into this category.) This paper will examine the response of the Christchurch High Court to this extraordinary situation as a case study in innovative judging practices and from a jurisprudential perspective. In 2011, following the earthquakes, the High Court made a commitment that earthquake-related civil claims would be dealt with as swiftly as the Court's resources permitted. In May 2012, it commenced a special “Earthquake List” to manage these cases. The list (which is ongoing) seeks to streamline the trial process, resolve quickly claims with precedent value or involving acute personal hardship or large numbers of people, facilitate settlement and generally work proactively and innovatively with local lawyers, technical experts and other stakeholders. For example, the Court maintains a public list (in spreadsheet format, available online) with details of all active cases before the Court, listing the parties and their lawyers, summarising the facts and identifying the legal issues raised. It identifies cases in which issues of general importance have been or will be decided, with the expressed purpose being to assist earthquake litigants and those contemplating litigation and to facilitate communication among parties and lawyers. This paper will posit the Earthquake List as an attempt to implement innovative judging techniques to provide efficient yet just legal processes, and which can be examined from a variety of jurisprudential perspectives. One of these is as a case study in the well-established debate about the dialogic relationship between public decisions and private settlement in the rule of law. Drawing on the work of scholars such as Hazel Genn, Owen Fiss, David Luban, Carrie Menkel-Meadow and Judith Resnik, it will explore the tension between the need to develop the law through the doctrine of precedent and the need to resolve civil disputes fairly, affordably and expeditiously. It will also be informed by the presenter’s personal experience of the interplay between reported decisions and private settlement in post-earthquake Christchurch through her work mediating insurance disputes. From a methodological perspective, this research project itself gives rise to issues suitable for discussion at the Law and Society Annual Meeting. These include the challenges in empirical study of judges, working with data collected by the courts and statistical analysis of the legal process in reference to settlement. September 2015 marked the five-year anniversary of the first Christchurch earthquake. There remains widespread dissatisfaction amongst Christchurch residents with the ongoing delays in resolving claims, particularly insurers, and the rebuild process. There will continue to be challenges in Christchurch for years to come, both from as-yet unresolved claims but also because of the possibility of a new wave of claims arising from poor quality repairs. Thus, a final purpose of presenting this paper at the 2016 Meeting is to gain the benefit of other scholarly perspectives and experiences of innovative judging best practice, with a view to strengthening and improving the judicial processes in Christchurch. This Annual Meeting of the Law and Society Association in New Orleans is a particularly appropriate forum for this paper, given the recent ten year anniversary of Hurricane Katrina and the plenary session theme of “Natural and Unnatural Disasters – human crises and law’s response.” The presenter has a personal connection with this theme, as she was a Fulbright scholar from New Zealand at New York University in 2005/2006 and participated in the student volunteer cleanup effort in New Orleans following Katrina. http://www.lawandsociety.org/NewOrleans2016/docs/2016_Program.pdf

Research papers, University of Canterbury Library

The Canterbury earthquakes in 2010 and 2011 had a significant impact on landlords and tenants of commercial buildings in the city of Christchurch. The devastation wrought on the city was so severe that in an unprecedented response to this disaster a cordon was erected around the central business district for nearly two and half years while demolition, repairs and rebuilding took place. Despite the destruction, not all buildings were damaged. Many could have been occupied and used immediately if they had not been within the cordoned area. Others had only minor damage but repairs to them could not be commenced, let alone completed, owing to restrictions on access caused by the cordon. Tenants were faced with a major problem in that they could not access their buildings and it was likely to be a long time before they would be allowed access again. The other problem was uncertainty about the legal position as neither the standard form leases in use, nor any statute, provided for issues arising from an inaccessible building. The parties were therefore uncertain about their legal rights and obligations in this situation. Landlords and tenants were unsure whether tenants were required to pay rent for a building that could not be accessed or whether they could terminate their leases on the basis that the building was inaccessible. This thesis looks at whether the common law doctrine of frustration could apply to leases in these circumstances, where the lease had made no provision. It analyses the history of the doctrine and how it applies to a lease, the standard form leases in use at the time of the earthquakes and the unexpected and extraordinary nature of the earthquakes. It then reports on the findings of the qualitative empirical research undertaken to look at the experiences of landlords and tenants after the earthquakes. It is argued that the circumstances of landlords and tenants met the test for the doctrine of frustration. Therefore, the doctrine could have applied to leases to enable the parties to terminate them. It concludes with a suggestion for reform in the form of a new Act to govern the special relationship between commercial landlords and tenants, similar to legislation already in place covering other types of relationships like those in residential tenancies and employment. Such legislation could provide dispute resolution services to enable landlords and tenants to have access to justice to determine their legal rights at all times, and in particular, in times of crisis.

Audio, Radio New Zealand

1. Hon PHIL GOFF to the Prime Minister: Has the tax switch which he promised would leave no-one worse off fully compensated all New Zealanders for the rise in the cost of living over the last year; if not, which groups are worse off? 2. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree that due to inflation, no new spending in the upcoming Budget is the equivalent of a cut in real terms? 3. DAVID BENNETT to the Minister of Finance: What tax changes take effect on or around 1 April? 4. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE to the Minister of Finance: Why did he announce on 17 March 2011 that the Government would carry all the costs of earthquake reconstruction on its balance sheet with no reduction in operating spending, when the Prime Minister said just three days later that new operating spending would be reduced to zero? 5. AARON GILMORE to the Minister of Education: What progress has been made re-opening schools and early childhood education centres in Christchurch following the 22 February earthquake? 6. CHARLES CHAUVEL to the Minister of Civil Defence: To date, how many buildings have been demolished in Canterbury without notifications to the building or business owners? 7. HONE HARAWIRA to the Attorney-General: Is he satisfied that he has the support required for the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill to pass into law? 8. DARIEN FENTON to the Minister of Labour: What impact, if any, will the Christchurch earthquake have on the Government's employment law changes due to be implemented on 1 April? 9. JONATHAN YOUNG to the Minister of Corrections: What progress has been made toward the implementation of the smoking ban in New Zealand prisons? 10. CLARE CURRAN to the Minister for Communications and Information Technology: By what date will the 75 percent of urban New Zealanders receive ultra-fast broadband under his current proposal? 11. METIRIA TUREI to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that the "Government will build the effectiveness of New Zealand's public transport networks" and "will be working closely with the Auckland Council as they develop their strategic vision for the City through the Auckland Spatial Plan"? 12. TODD McCLAY to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What counselling support is available for Cantabrians impacted by the earthquake?

Audio, Radio New Zealand

PHIL TWYFORD to the Minister for Building and Construction: Does he agree with Mainfreight founder and Chairman Bruce Plested that housing is a “social disgrace”, that the market cannot sort out this problem, and that real leadership and intestinal fortitude is needed now? JONATHAN YOUNG to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on real after-tax wages rising in New Zealand? CHRIS HIPKINS to the Minister of Education: Will she apologise on behalf of the Government for the flawed handling of the Canterbury school mergers and closures after the 2011 earthquakes; if not, why not? ANDREW BAYLY to the Minister for Building and Construction: What progress has the Government made in improving the tenancy laws and guidance for dealing with the problem of methamphetamine testing and contamination? CARMEL SEPULONI to the Associate Minister for Social Housing: What motels has the Government purchased in response to the increased emergency housing demand, and how much has this cost? RON MARK to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements on the Clutha-Southland electorate office issue even if facts known to him make doing so extraordinarily difficult? MAUREEN PUGH to the Minister of Corrections: How is Budget 2017 investing in rehabilitation and reintegration outcomes for offenders? Hon DAVID PARKER to the Minister of Local Government: Does she agree with the Prime Minister’s answer yesterday that drinking-water contamination in Havelock North was “about local government performance and overseeing ratepayer-funded assets whose purpose is to deliver clean and healthy water to its local people. The extensive inquiry into that incident was warranted by widespread illness in the area ... it is about local body performance in overseeing their clean water system”? BRETT HUDSON to the Minister of Local Government: What recent announcements has she made regarding Wellington’s resilience to natural hazards? JULIE ANNE GENTER to the Minister of Transport: Will the Government start building rail to the airport sooner if Auckland hosts the next America’s Cup regatta or will Aucklanders still have to wait 30 years? STUART NASH to the Minister of Police: Does she have any concerns about any of the results of the New Zealand Police Workplace Survey 2017; if so, what in particular? ALASTAIR SCOTT to the Associate Minister of Education: What recent announcements has he made to improve school infrastructure in the Wairarapa?

Audio, Radio New Zealand

Questions to Ministers 1. Hon ANNETTE KING to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: How many working-age people are currently receiving a main benefit and how does this compare to July 2010? 2. AMY ADAMS to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on the cost of damage from the Canterbury earthquake? 3. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE to the Minister of Finance: Will he agree to a full public and independent Commission of Inquiry into the collapse of South Canterbury Finance? 4. METIRIA TUREI to the Attorney-General: Does he stand by his statement that the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill "treats all New Zealanders including Māori without discrimination"? 5. Hon DARREN HUGHES to the Minister of Transport: Does he stand by his statement that "the Government is totally committed to the SuperGold Card"? 6. TIM MACINDOE to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What is the Government doing to support the Canterbury community through the earthquake recovery? 7. Hon TREVOR MALLARD to the Minister of Education: Does she stand by all of her statements in answer to oral question No. 8 yesterday? 8. Dr PAUL HUTCHISON to the Minister of Health: What reports has he received on the Canterbury District Health Board's actions following the Canterbury earthquake? 9. Hon DAVID PARKER to the Attorney-General: Given his answer yesterday that he agreed with the Prime Minister's statement earlier this year, "in the end if we can't reach an agreement then the status quo will remain", what acknowledgement, if any, has he received from the Māori Party that the new legal framework for settling foreshore and seabed claims will be "durable"? 10. Dr JACKIE BLUE to the Minister of Transport: What updates has he received on transport in and around Canterbury following the earthquake and numerous aftershocks? 11. DARIEN FENTON to the Minister of Labour: Is she currently considering any changes to employment law that were not included in the changes announced at the National Party Conference; if so, what are they? 12. KATRINA SHANKS to the Minister of Housing: How is the Department of Building and Housing working to keep landlords and tenants informed of their rights and responsibilities following the Christchurch earthquake?