The Evaluating Maternity Units (EMU) study is a mixed method project involving a prospective cohort study, surveys (two postnatal questionnaires) and focus groups. It is an Australasian project funded by the Australian Health and Medical Research Council. Its primary aim was to compare the birth outcomes of two groups of well women – one group who planned to give birth at a primary maternity unit, and a second group who planned to give birth at a tertiary hospital. The secondary aim was to learn about women’s views and experiences regarding their birthplace decision-making, transfer, maternity care and experiences, and any other issues they raised. The New Zealand arm of the study was carried out in Christchurch, and was seriously affected by the earthquakes, halting recruitment at 702 participants. Comprehensive details were collected from both midwives and women regarding antenatal and early labour changes of birthplace plans and perinatal transfers from the primary units to the tertiary hospital. Women were asked about how they felt about plan changes and transfers in the first survey, and they were discussed in some focus groups. The transfer findings are still being analysed and will be presented. This study is set within the local maternity context, is recent, relevant and robust. It provides midwives with contemporary information about transfers from New Zealand primary maternity units and women’s views and experiences. It may help inform the conversations midwives have with each other, and with women and their families/whānau, regarding the choices of birthplace for well childbearing women.
A PDF copy of an application form for the Anglican Advocacy (previously Anglican Life Social Justice Unit) Save Your Self Interest Free Lending Program.
A copy of a letter from Hugo Kristinsson which was sent to Helen Beaumont, Manager of the Natural Environment and Heritage Unit at the Christchurch City Council, on 17 June 2014. The letter was sent on behalf of Empowered Christchurch. It is about legislation which, according to Kristinsson, determines land below the mean high water spring to be public land. Kristinsson is concerned that this legislation will cause 'hundred or even thousands' of people to lose their assets. He urges the Council to 'have the land surveyed and to redefine the CMA [Crown Minerals Act] before land claims are settled'.
The quality of multi-owned residential buildings and the capability to maintain that quality into the future is important in preserving not only the monetary value of such housing (Lujanen, 2010) but also the quality of life for its residents. The aim of this paper is to examine the governance and decision-making rules and regulations as they relate to the undertaking of major repairs in multi-owned residential buildings in Finland and New Zealand with particular regard to the Finnish Limited Liability Housing Companies Act 2010 (LLHCA 2010) and the New Zealand Unit Titles Act 2010 (UTA 2010). Currently, major building repairs are topical issues in both countries; in Finland as a result of ageing buildings requiring major re-fitting of pipes and other infrastructure, and in New Zealand as a result of earthquake damage in Christchurch and Leaky Building Syndrome nationwide. Major repairs can be a significant financial burden to unit owners and collective decisions can be difficult to achieve. Interestingly, new legislation that governs multi-owned housing was enacted in both countries in 2010. The recent enactment of this legislation provides an opportunity to examine the UTA 2010 and LLHCA 2010 with regard to how they address major repairs, improvements in housing stock and the financing possibilities associated with these undertakings. More specifically this paper explores housing intensification (i.e. building up, out or alongside existing multi-owned residential buildings on commonly owned land) as a means of financing major repairs. The comparison of governance and decision-making in two different shared ownership systems with different histories and cultural contexts provides a chance to explore the possibilities and challenges that each country faces, and the potential to learn from each other’s practices and develop these further. In this regard the findings from this paper contribute to the academic literature (Bugden 2005; Easthope & Randolph 2009; Dupuis & Dixon 2010; Lujanen 2010; Easthope, Hudson & Randolph 2013) concerning to the governance of multi-owned housing as it relates to intensive housing development and its wider social and economic implications.
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE to the Prime Minister: Is he still committed to "ensuring our schools are working for all students", and is he satisfied his Government has done enough to ensure that every child has equal access to a low-cost public education?
CLAUDETTE HAUITI to the Minister of Finance: What steps has the Government taken to turn around the Treasury's forecast net Government debt?
METIRIA TUREI to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?
Hon DAVID PARKER to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree with Infometrics that after the Canterbury rebuild peaks, the New Zealand economy will experience a "hangover" with slow income and GDP growth?
SCOTT SIMPSON to the Minister of Justice: What justice initiatives has she announced to address family violence in New Zealand?
DAVID SHEARER to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade: When did he first become aware of allegations that led to a Malaysian diplomat being charged with assault with the intent to commit rape and burglary, and what actions did he take?
MARK MITCHELL to the Minister of Corrections: What recent announcements has she made on how technology can be used to better protect victims of domestic violence?
JAN LOGIE to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: Was he made aware of the wishes, if any, of the woman at the centre of the assault with intent to rape charges laid against a Malaysian diplomat, regarding his return to Malaysia; if so, when?
JONATHAN YOUNG to the Minister of Health: What investments has the Government made in health services for Taranaki?
CHRIS HIPKINS to the Minister of Education: Is she satisfied that schools receive sufficient funding to deliver the New Zealand curriculum?
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI to the Minister for Food Safety: What recent announcements has she made regarding food labelling?
DENIS O'ROURKE to the Minister responsible for the Earthquake Commission: Is he satisfied with the progress of the Earthquake Commission in the settlement or disposition of all claims in respect of multi-unit dwellings, arising from the Canterbury earthquake; if so, why?
At the conclusion of the 2010 and 2011 Canterbury earthquakes more than 5100 homes had been deemed unsafe for habitation. The land and buildings of these were labelled “red zoned” and are too badly damaged for remediation. These homes have been demolished or are destined for demolition. To assist the red zone population to relocate, central government have offered to ‘buy out’ home owners at the Governmental Value (GV) that was last reviewed in 2007. While generous in the economic context at the time, the area affected was the lowest value land and housing in Christchurch and so there is a capital shortfall between the 2007 property value and the cost of relocating to more expensive properties. This shortfall is made worse by increasing present day values since the earthquakes. Red zone residents have had to relocate to the far North and Western extremities of Christchurch, and some chose to move even further to neighbouring towns or cities. The eastern areas and commercial centres close to the red zone are affected as well. They have lost critical mass which has negatively impacted businesses in the catchments of the Red Zone. This thesis aims to repopulate the suburbs most affected by the abandonment of the red zone houses. Because of the relative scarcity of sound building sites in the East and to introduce affordability to these houses, an alternative method of development is required than the existing low density suburban model. Smart medium density design will be tested as an affordable and appropriate means of living. Existing knowledge in this field will be reviewed, an analysis of what East Christchurch’s key characteristics are will occur, and an examination of built works and site investigations will also be conducted. The research finds that at housing densities of 40 units per hectare, the spatial, vehicle, aesthetic needs of East Christchurch can be accommodated. Centralising development is also found to offer better lifestyle choices than the isolated suburbs at the edges of Christchurch, to be more efficient using existing infrastructure, and to place less reliance on cars. Stronger communities are formed from the outset and for a full range of demographics. Eastern affordable housing options are realised and Christchurch’s ever expanding suburban tendencies are addressed. East Christchurch presently displays a gaping scar of devastated houses that ‘The New Eastside’ provides a bandage and a cure for. Displaced and dispossessed Christchurch residents can be re-housed within a new heart for East Christchurch.
Christchurch was struck by a 6.3 magnitude earthquake on the 22 February 2011. The quake devastated the city, taking lives and causing widespread damage to the inner city and suburban homes. The central city lost over half its buildings and over 7000 homes were condemned throughout Christchurch. The loss of such a great number of homes has created the requirement for new housing to replace those that were lost. Many of which were located in the eastern, less affluent, suburbs. The response to the housing shortage is the planned creation of large scale subdivisions on the outskirts of the city. Whilst this provides the required housing it creates additional sprawl to a city that does not need it. The extension of Christchurch’s existing suburban sprawl puts pressure on roading and pushes residents further out of the city, creating a disconnection between them. Christchurch’s central city had a very small residential population prior to the earthquakes with very few options for dense inner city living. The proposed rebuild of the inner city calls for a new ‘dense, vibrant and diverse central hub’. Proposing the introduction of new residential units within the central city. However the placement of the low-rise housing in a key attribute of the rebuild, the eastern green ‘Frame’, diminishes its value as open green space. The proposed housing will also be restrictive in its target market and therefore the idea of a ‘vibrant’ inner city is difficult to achieve. This thesis acts as response to the planned rebuild of inner Christchurch. Proposing the creation of a model for inner city housing which provides an alternative option to the proposed housing and existing and ongoing suburban sprawl. The design options were explored through a design-led process were the options were critiqued and developed. The ‘final’ proposal is comprises of three tall towers, aptly named the Triple Towers, which condense the proposed low-rise housing from an 11000 square metre footprint to combined footprint of 1500 square metres. The result is an expansion of the publicly available green space along the proposed eastern frame of the city. The height of the project challenges the height restrictions and is provocative in its proposal and placement. The design explores the relationships between the occupants, the building, the ‘Frame’ and the central city. The project is discussed through an exploration of the architecture of Rem Koolhaas, Renzo Piano and Oscar Niemeyer. Rather than their architecture being taken as a direct influence on which the design is based the discussion revolves around how and why each piece of comparative architecture is relevant to the designs desired outcome.
