Editor: I. Mallikarjuna Sharma Volume 11: 15-31 March 2015 No. 5-6

Recommendations

Info

F-160 Quake Outcasts v. Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery [NZ-SC: Court Opinion] (2015) 1 LAW Earthquake Recovery Authority and the Earthquake Commission”. 94 The Finance and Expenditure Committee’s report stated: 95 Some of us are concerned that the decision to zone land into different categories was undertaken with insufficient consultation, was not based on clear criteria, and has proved divisive of communities. [63] The report went on to say: 96 Some of us are concerned about a lack of engagement with the public over these zoning decisions, which affect the future of entire communities. In contrast with normal council processes, which would involve advertising and public submissions, information flows had been confusing and poorly managed. Recovery Strategy [64] After the June 2011 decisions, community workshops were organised by CERA seeking public comment on a Recovery Strategy for greater Christchurch. The draft Recovery Strategy was made available for public viewing, comment and consultation from 10 September 2011 to 31 October 2011. The completed Recovery Strategy came into effect on 1 June 2012. 97 94 Finance and Expenditure Committee 2010/11 financial review of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority and the Earthquake Commission (29 March 2012). At 4. 95 At 4. 96 At 5. As is recorded in the transcript of evidence in the appendix to the report, the Hon Lianne Dalziel put the lack of consultation to the then chief executive of CERA. She said “The reason I wanted to kind of clarify the legal status of the land decisions is that if the city council is doing a plan change or a zoning change they would advertise it publicly, people would be able to make submissions, and there would be true engagement. But this has just been announced at press conferences — bang, a community’s gone”. Ms Dalziel’s overall point appears to have been that there had been effective compulsion in an allegedly voluntary process. The chief executive responded by saying “Well, all I can say is that at the moment people wanted us to make them an offer, because a lot of people wanted to go”: at 38. 97 The “Recovery Strategy for Greater Christchurch” was approved by the Governor-General by Order in Council (Canterbury Earthquake (Recovery Strategy Approval) Order [65] The completed Recovery Strategy expressly acknowledged that, while it was envisaged when the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act was passed that the Recovery Strategy might have addressed the areas where rebuilding or other redevelopment may or may not occur, the Strategy had not been able to address that issue. 98 The reason for this given in the Recovery Strategy was because: 99 It is ... a huge and complex task to make decisions about land zoning and the location and timing of rebuilding. Similarly, it is not yet clear whether Recovery Plans – which are statutory documents with the power to overwrite a range of planning instruments – will be the most appropriate and effective way to provide direction. [66] While the draft Recovery Strategy that was released on 10 September 2011 had made no mention of the future use of the red zone, the finalised Recovery Strategy stated the following: 100 Residential red zone land clearance is overseeing the clearance of residential red zone properties and the return of the land to open space. It consists of three stages over two to three years. The first stage is to remove built structures and services. The second will involve larger-scale land clearance and grassing. The final stage will be to liaise with utility providers to remove public infrastructure no longer needed. After that, Land Information New Zealand will manage the open space. [67] To help achieve the outcomes of the Recovery Strategy, a Land Use Recovery Plan was directed to be created by the Minister to provide “direction for residential and business land use development to support recovery and 2012). The Order in Council was notified in the New Zealand Gazette: “Canterbury Earthquake (Recovery Strategy Approval) Order 2012” (31 May 2012) 61 New Zealand Gazette 1745. 98 CERA “Recovery Strategy for Greater Christchurch” (June 2012) [Christchurch Recovery Strategy] at 2. 99 At 2. 100 At 40. Law Animated World, 15-31 March 2015 102
(2015) 1 LAW Quake Outcasts v. Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery [NZ-SC: Court Opinion] F-161 rebuilding across” greater Christchurch. 101 The draft Land Use Recovery Plan, which was publically notified on 6 July 2013, stated: 102 In existing urban areas, the significant hazard has been addressed through establishing residential red and green zones and by the identification of green zone land under three technical categories – TC1, TC2 and TC3. Until such time as the future use of this land is determined by the Crown the only areas that are prohibited for urban activities are those within the residential red zone. [68] That paragraph was not included in the final Land Use Recovery Plan which was gazetted on 6 December 2013. 103 Offers relating to other categories of property [69] From around April 2012, CERA officials began working on the position of those not covered by the June 2011 decisions, including vacant land owners and uninsured house owners. [70] On 15 June 2012, Mr Brownlee announced that the Crown had extended its offer to purchase red zone properties to include properties that had been under construction at the time of the February 2012 earthquake and to non-residential properties owned by not-for-profit organisations. The decision affected 17 residential properties that had been under construction and had building works insurance and seven non-residential properties owned by not-for-profit organisations that had insured their buildings, but, because of being non-residential, did not have EQC cover for their land. [71] In announcing the decision Mr Brownlee said “[t]oday’s announcement is consistent with the Crown’s Recovery Principles and will enable 101 Environment Canterbury Regional Council “Land Use Recovery Plan” (6 December 2013) at 6. 102 Environment Canterbury Regional Council “Draft Land Use Recovery Plan” (6 July 2013) at 62 (emphasis added). 103 Environment Canterbury Regional Council, above n 101. See “Land Use Recovery Plan Commencement Notice” (6 December 2013) 164 New Zealand Gazette 4517. these people to also get on with their lives”. 104 In the Cabinet paper signed by Mr Brownlee on 25 May 2012, the rationale behind the extension of the offers was explained. For the residential properties under construction, the paper stated “the building/construction works could be insured but could not insure the land; Consistent with Crown’s Recovery principles …”. With regards to not-for-profits, it said “[p]roperty owners could not insure the land, could insure the building; Consistent with Crown’s Recovery principles, supports not-for-profit organisations to reestablish elsewhere…”. 105 As a result, owners of land that that had dwellings under construction and had building/construction insurance and owners of not-for-profits that had building insurance, were offered 100 per cent of the most recent valuation for their uninsured and uninsurable land. 106 [72] On 30 August 2012, the Minister signed a revised Cabinet paper which related to four further categories of red zone owners. These were insured residential leasehold properties, properties with no insurance (vacant land and other uninsured properties) and insured commercial/industrial properties. 107 When the Minister announced the creation of the red zones and the associated offers in June 2011, it was said that the Government would be considering the position of the uninsured in the next few weeks 104 CERA “Red zone offer extended to new categories” (15 June 2012) www.cera.govt.nz. 105 Cabinet Paper “Red zone residential properties under construction and non-residential properties owned by not-for-profit organisations” (signed by the Minister on 25 May 2012) at 2. 106 With the same choice in relation to improvements as under the June 2011 offers. 107 See Cabinet Paper “Red Zone Purchase Offers for Residential Leasehold, Vacant, Uninsured, and Commercial/Industrial Properties” (signed by the Minister on 30 August 2012) [Cabinet Paper (30 August 2012)]. The recommendations were approved by the Cabinet Business Committee on 3 September: see Cabinet Business Committee (Minute of Decision), above n 5. 103 Law Animated World, 15-31 March 2015
Page 1 and 2:
(2015) 1 LAW Martyrs Memorial Speci
Page 3 and 4:
(2015) 1 LAW Martyrs Memorial Speci
Page 5 and 6:
PARUCHURI HANUMANTHA RAO Paruchuri
Page 7 and 8:
(2015) 1 LAW Paruchuri Hanumantha R
Page 9 and 10:
(2015) 1 LAW Paruchuri Hanumantha R
Page 11 and 12:
A law may be formal or informal. An
Page 13 and 14:
(2015) 1 LAW A Historical View of L
Page 15 and 16:
(2015) 1 LAW A Historical View of L
Page 17 and 18:
THE ZIETGEIST MOVEMENT : A NEW TRAI
Page 19 and 20:
(2015) 1 LAW The Zeitgeist Movement
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF MARTYR RAMPRASAD
Page 27 and 28:
(2015) 1 LAW Autobiography of Marty
Page 29 and 30:
CHARLIE HEBDO: THINKING NEW, RETHIN
Page 31 and 32:
(2015) 1 LAW Charlie Hebdo : Thinki
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
POLICING BELIEF: IMPACT OF BLASPHEM
Page 43 and 44:
(2015) 1 LAW Policing Belief: Impac
Page 45 and 46:
HISTORICAL INEVITABILITY OR ELECTOR
Page 47 and 48:
(2015) 1 LAW Shreya Singhal v. Unio
Page 49 and 50:
(2015) 1 LAW Shreya Singhal v. Unio
Page 51 and 52: (2015) 1 LAW Shreya Singhal v. Unio
Page 87 and 88: (2015) 1 LAW Quake Outcasts v. Mini
Page 101: (2015) 1 LAW Quake Outcasts v. Mini
Page 143 and 144: DISENGAGE WITH PAKISTAN COMPLETELY
Page 145 and 146: LEGENDARY HOCKEY PLAYER DHYAN CHAND
Page 147 and 148: (2015) 1 LAW 147 Our reverent and g
show all

Editor: I. Mallikarjuna Sharma Volume 11: 15-31 March 2015 No. 5-6

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?