It, and the Spencerville report, follow the same pattern. There are 8 or 9 pages of text followed by references, maps and diagrams.
Only part of the text is immediately relevant to us, and that is in Section 7.3 Reconstruction Considerations - Land (page 6 of both the Brooklands and Spencerville reports).
Future risk of land damage
In Section 7.3 - Land we find out whether the land is at greater risk to earthquake damage than before 4 September. The ideal answer is that it is not. For Brooklands (and Spencerville) the report says:
In terms of Section 106 of the Resource Management Act 1991, and Section 71 of the Building Act 2004, we consider that the risk of land damage due to a future seismic event is sufficiently low that building consents should continue to be issued for residential developments within the subject area in accordance with existing procedures.
Good news and, my assumption, no need for an adverse comment on a LIM report.
Foundation design for repairs and rebuilding
Section 7.3 - Land also discusses the need for any special foundation designs for repairs or rebuilding. All land in the area that had previously been determined as acceptable for residential building, has now returned to that condition:
Therefore properties requiring repairs and rebuilding should be subject to the normal foundation design, assessment and consenting requirements as determined by the local council building regulations and Building Act 2004. It needs to be recognised that the land has previously been determined by the Council as acceptable for residential building development and the ground is no less resistant to damage now than it was before the Darfield Earthquake.
Properties with land damage
Section 7.3 - Land also covers property with land damage. In the extract below I have underlined the bit that will have relevance to those of us with land damage.
Some earthquake related land damage has resulted in ground surface disturbance (such as settlement and cracking of the surface crust), which may require minor surface levelling and recompaction before building repairs and rebuilding commences. Some further limited geotechnical input will be required to confirm that the surface crust on an individual property provides adequate bearing capacity for the static case and provide recommendations for foundation design to improve future seismic performance, where appropriate.
The reports are readable, and worth the effort. The Brooklands report is here, and the Spencerville one here.