Search This Blog

Saturday, February 19, 2011

EQC blog - EQR/Fletchers process.

The following has been taken direct from the February 18 post on the EQC blog (here). I have changed the layout of the EQC post to bullet points, but none of the words, structure or meaning is altered.

This process assumes you have decided to stay with the PMO (EQR/Fletchers) process. Opting out will be covered tomorrow. (NOTE: I missed that deadline. The opting out post was done on the 22nd).
"If you decide to stay in the PMO scheme what can you expect to happen in terms of process? Once the claim is accepted, processed and the file is listed for referral to the Fletchers Earthquake Recovery team (EQR).
  • The claim is then sent from EQC to the EQR central office.
  • After a period of preparation by EQR, it is assigned to an EQR Hub – a project management office. These hubs are distributed across the Canterbury region.
  • The next step is for EQR to allocate a Supervisor at which time a letter is sent to you, the homeowner, including the name and phone number of the Supervisor who will be overseeing the repairs on your property.  There is also a Community Liaison Officer based at each Hub, who is available to deal with related questions or concerns.
  • The EQR supervisor and the contractor will visit the property to review the job and prepare for the start of the work. This may involve the inclusion of any extra damage caused by aftershocks, or previously unidentified damage. Depending on the nature of the damage an engineer, architect, or other specialist consultants may also need to view the property.  It is also determined whether a building consent is required at this stage, and EQR works closely with the councils to process these as quickly as possible.
  • Once complete, the repair pricing package is approved by EQC and then repair works can begin.
  • Repairs are completed by accredited contractors, and overseen by EQR.
  • As the repair works progress EQR arranges for the necessary quality assurance inspections and council inspections to be completed.
  • On conclusion, EQR carries out a final inspection and confirms that the work has been completed satisfactorily."
.

EQC - Reading the Interpretative Geotech Report for Kairaki and Pines Beach

The links are fixed and the report can be successfully download from here.

As with the other reports the best place to start reading is Section 7.3 Reconstruction Considerations - Land on page 6. The general outlook looks good although properties with land damage will need some geotech analaysis before work can start.
.

EQC geotech factual report - Burwood

The technical (factual) report for Burwood has been released. As with the other technical reports it probably won't mean much to most of us. You can find it here.

Friday, February 18, 2011

EQC blog - The Concept Design Report and work on homes in Zone C

Taken direct from the EQC blog (here).
Work on homes in Zone C will take place as part of a coordinated effort and work will start following the development of the ‘Concept Design Report’. The data gathered from the Factual and Interpretative reports, will feed into the Concept Design for the remedial works – which constitutes 12 kilometres of in-ground remedial works being funded by the government (not EQC). This work aims to limit the worst of the damage should we be unfortunate enough to have another very large earthquake nearby in our lifetime.
The concept design will include:
a)    Investigating the best solution for each location
b)    Final concept design of the solution
c)    Co-ordination of works programme with Council Infrastructure programme.
d)    Obtaining  consents
e)    Delivery strategy
f)     Cost estimates
The concept design report will have two main purposes:
    1)    To provide government (via EQC) with timeframes and a budget for the proposed works.
   2)    To enable the Councils (who will be project managing the in-ground works) to develop detailed designs.

EQC Blog - back in action with info on land remediation and EQR/Fletchers

The EQC blog is back in action (here).

EQC chief operating officer Lance Dixon has posted a lengthy blog on:
  • the geotech reports (all factual reports released by the end of this month, all interpretative reports released by the end of March).
  • information on timing of work
  • information for those living in a Zone C area
  • update on the PMO (EQR/Fletchers) process (see also separate blog, available tomorrow)
  • an outline of the stages of the PMO process from EQC handover to completion.

Thursday, February 17, 2011

EQC - Finding the Interpretative Geotech Report for Kairaki and Pines Beach

As at 8.30 this evening the EQC link to the Kairaki and Pines Beach interpretative report remains broken. I have e-mailed EQC about this. I also tried to post a message on their blog asking for an urgent fix, however they are no longer allowing comments.

HOWEVER you can, in the meantime, click on this link here which should get you where you want to go.
.

EQC geotech factual reports - New Brighton

The EQC geotech factual report for New Brighton has been released. It is here. As with all other factual reports it is of highly technical nature.
.

EQC geotech factual reports - Dallington Upper, Fendalton & Merivale, and Southshore

The technical (factual) reports for Dallington Upper, Fendalton & Merivale, and Southshore have been released. As with the other technical reports they probably won't mean much to most of us.

The reports can be found here for Dallington Upper, Fendalton & Merivale here, and Southshore here.

The reports released to date are:
  • Bexley & Aranui
  • Brooklands 
  • Dallington Lower
  • Dallington Upper
  • Fendalton & Merivale
  • Kaiapoi North
  • Kaiapoi South,
  • Kairaki & Pines Beach
  • Parklands
  • Richmond
  • Southshore
  • Spencerville
  • Tai Tapu
Those outstanding are:
  • Avondale
  • Avonside
  • Bishopdale
  • Burwood
  • Casebrook & Redwood
  • Halswell
  • New Brighton
  • Wainoni

Wednesday, February 16, 2011

EQC - Interpretative Geotech Report for Kairaki and Pines Beach

The interpretative report is listed as having been released. Unfortunately, as at 10.00 this evening, the link on the EQC website is wrong and goes nowhere.

Check this page (here) later on and you may be able to find it.

Rebuildchristchurch.co.nz website - back in business.

The legal issue has apparently been resolved and life will return to normal. The site is here.
.

Politically Trivial

In checking the traps for relevant news and information over the last 36 hours the following was not noticed on various political websites

The National Party (here). These guys are keen on securing a brighter future!
Gerry Brownlee - no mention that Gerry is the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery, although his role as Associate Minister for the Rugby World Cup is listed. No mention of the Canterbury earthquake at all on the party's Gerry Brownlee listing (here). Gerry's personal website is more up to date with these things (see here).
Bill English - no mention of any involvement by Bill English in earthquake recovery (see here). Bill has his own website here. On the front page of his website there is no mention of either the Canterbury earthquake, or that Bill English is the Minister in Charge of the Earthquake Commission. Did you know Bill had ministerial responsibility for EQC?
Nothing Earthquake related for Nicky Wagner or Aaron Gilmore, although Nicky's website (here) has information on earthquake issues. Aarons' website (here) is just a list of widely available websites.
ACT maybe? they say "Act now it's time!"
Nothing, anywhere, about earthquake recovery (or any place, other than Australia, Auckland and the foreshore). Their website is here. 
Maori? - after all, the people are the most important thing.
Nothing mentioned. Their website is here.
Maybe Labour? - the party that works for kids, the economy and worries about GST on food.
Their website is here. No earthquake recovery material on the front page of the website. Some press releases under News. On the People page Clayton Cosgrove is listed as the Spokesperson for Earthquake Recovery. The page has a link to Clayton's profile which contains a list of his most recent earthquake related articles (here).  The profile for Lianne Dalziel (here) also contains a few earthquake related articles. Brendon Burn's profile contains nothing earthquake related, however his website (here) has a significant number of related articles.
Or the Alliance? - with policies based on socialist principles: democracy, equality, and social ownership
Their website (here) has been down for maintenance over the period I've been checking this out.
What about the Greens then? - they're into issues that affect people.
Nothing about earthquake recovery on the front page of their website (here). Nothing on their Issues page, their News page, their Policy page, and nothing since the 6th of September on their regional-Canterbury page.
Overall not a great deal of interest or acknowledgement of the earthquake's recovery phase. Maybe it was a big event on the earthquake scale but no longer registers on the political scale.
.

Tuesday, February 15, 2011

EQC geotech factual reports - Dallington Lower and Richmond

The technical (factual) reports for Dallington Lower and Richmond have been released. As with the other technical reports they probably won't mean much to most of us.

For those who don't know what constitutes Dallington Lower, there is a map in Appendix A of the Dallington Lower report. It is the area enclosed by Dallington Terrace, Locksley Avenue, and McBratneys Road.

Richmond is shown in Appendix A of that report and is the area bounded by Hills Road, Guild Street, Stapletons Road to Averill Street, Poulton Avenue, through Richmond Park to Banks Avenue (at the SW corner of Banks Avenue School), River Road, Emily Couzins Road Avenue, North Avon Road back to Hills Road.

The reports can be found here for Dallington Lower and Richmond here.
.

Rebuild Christchurch - website off-line

Rebuild Christchurch, the website for the Canterbury Business Recovery Network, which also hosts CanCERN's web content, is off-line (web site is here).

The website, as at 4.00pm today, has a notice saying it is off-line for legal reasons. At the end of the notice is the suggestion to try back again on the 18th of February at 11.05 am.
.

Wheelie bin stickers

Dorien has been away visiting family in the Netherlands and returned with a few trophies: wheelie bin stickers. The photograph tells the story.

Wheelie bin stickers

 Dorien brought back a few more than she needed and is happy to sell them for what she paid (NZ $12). There are three flower ones, and one in an ivy style.

If you are interested give her a ring on  3897379  or e-mail her at dorien (at)) xtra  (dot) co (dot) nz  (I have modified the e-mail address so spammers can't find it and add her to the lists of addresses they use - take out the stuff in brackets to get the address).

EQC blog - R.I.P.?

On the 13th of January EQC started a blog (here).  It was intended the blog be used over "the next few crucial months" to keep us up to date with what is going on.

Following the first post there were some comments posted, with the last on the 1st of February by an EQC staffer. Since then: nothing.

It doesn't build confidence when an initiative to help communication fails almost immediately.

(NOTE added 21/02/2011: the EQC blog returned  to life with another post on the 18th of February)
.

Monday, February 14, 2011

Fletchers FAQ - Part 5: consultation and who decides the timing?

Shortly all the necessary technical information we have been waiting for will be available. So too will be an increasing number of EQC scope of works documents. Potentially EQR/Fletchers could start soon on assessing properties in this part of the world, where ever land remediation is not required.

Missing from this mix of information is the important matter of consultation: discussions on when and where work will start, how it will progress, who will be affected and what homeowner issues arise. To my knowledge absolutely no one from EQC, nor Earthquake Recovery Minister Gerry Brownlee, mayor Bob Parker, the Council, EQR/Fletchers or insurance companies have so much as mentioned consultation. I don't recall the consultation word being raised in any context.

What follows relates to the information available from EQR/Fletchers, however we can anticipate it will also apply to insurance companies' project managers.

From item 13 of the Fletchers FAQ we find:
13. What if I have to move out of my house while repairs are being made?
EQR will identify this requirement and give you as much notice as possible so that you or your insurance company can arrange alternative accommodation. We will programme the works and order materials in advance so that the time you need to be out of your property is minimised.
Add to this the following quote from item 3 of the Fletchers web page Repair Process:
3. ... The homeowner is informed of the proposed timing and duration of EQR activities on the property.
Uncertainty is created by these two documents because there is no undertaking to discuss mutual convenience, there appears to be no consultation to agree timing that is convenient to the homeowner (e.g. fitting in with pregnancy, children at school/exams, illnesses, commitments to overseas visitors) or to tie in with the availability of suitable (size, location, affordability) alternative housing. 

My reading of this is that while EQR/Fletechers will do their best to minimise the time homeowners are out of their house, efficiency and cost effectiveness will drive what happens. On the face of it, and it may just be the choice of words used to write the FAQ, the residents concerned will be expected to get out of their houses when advised to do so.

Once EQR/Fletchers get themselves sorted in our area the consultation and mutual convenience issues will be raised with them.

For the Fletchers FAQ go here, and for an outline of the repairs process go here.
.

Sunday, February 13, 2011

EQC - Interpretative Geotech Report for Brooklands and Spencerville

The Brooklands report is a good place to start if you want to try a dry run on an interpretative report.

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.
.