The South Brighton
Newsletter
Issue 7 •
7/2015
Coastal Hazards Thinking long term ~ Public seminar
The South Brighton Residents’ Association wishes to bring to your attention a public seminar that may affect your property and your future. We strongly encourage you to attend.
The Council is holding public seminars to help people better understand coastal hazards and the findings of a recent report. Check out how your property is affected at: http://www.ccc.govt.nz/environment/land/coast/coastal-hazards
~ Final design of welcome sign now approved ~
The inconvenienient truth
For the past four years, the South Brighton Residents’ Association has been very concerned that the earthquake damage to our coastal area appears to have been minimised or missed altogether by the powers that be! Viewing the street view on Google Earth pre and post the earthquakes reveals excessive land subsidence along the estuary. Before the earthquakes we had minimal stop banks along the Avon River. Today we have stop banks that are up to 1.2 metres high. This clearly shows there has been land subsidence along both sides of the river. These are temporary stop banks. They were built by the Council as an emergency response and are not up to infrastructure standard ( as per the Soil Conservation Act, 1941). They do not provide the required protection against erosion or against the intrusion of saline groundwater. It is the saline groundwater that killed the trees in our reserves. The SBRA has approached the authorities on numerous occasions to address this situation. The groundwater has been measured along Kibblewhite Street. The highest groundwater is 10 cm from the surface. This groundwater is tidal, saline water. The stop banks leak and groundwater flows freely under them. When the land subsided, the water stayed where it was. The ground lost bearing capacity as wet sand has up to 50% less bearing capacity than dry sand. This is called crust thinning. Foundations once designed for pre-earthquake conditions therefore may no longer be suitable. When land becomes waterlogged and no protection against erosion is provided, the land erodes, as we can see along the stop banks and the estuary. The only way to stop this is to make substantial investment in erosion protection and groundwater pumping measures. This is not considered a viable solution and no plans or budget have been disclosed by Council. A deafening silence is the only response we have had. We have questioned the zoning decisions (for example, why has the most at-risk area in South Brighton not been red zoned). We have pointed out that the current situation is due to earthquake damage and cannot be blamed on future sea level rise. A number of scientific sources corroborate this fact. Reference: http://ir.canterbury.ac.nz/bitstream/10092/8487/1/thesis_fulltext.pdf
The new draft hazard map for South Brighton. Darkest areas along the estuary is expected to erode away within 50 years.
Cabinet zoning decisions Cabinet ministers based zoning decisions on the assumption that individual solutions were available for all land that was zoned green. The Earthquake Commission has now stated that no individual solutions are, in fact, available for properties that are at increased vulnerability to flooding (IVF category). The logical conclusion from this is that the zoning decisions were based on incorrect assumptions and that the land in question is damaged beyond repair (a total loss).
Over the past few years, the SBRA has pointed out to authorities the seriousness of this situation. We: • submitted a deputation to the City Council in 2013. We were denied an opportunity to speak at the deputation • met with Bob Parker for an hour long meeting, after which there was no response • corresponded with EQC and CERA on the land damage • requested Land Information New Zealand investigate land damage • corresponded with Environment Canterbury • made a notification to the Community Board and the West Melton Water Committee in December 2014. The WMW Committee agreed on 27 November 2014 to disestablish the existing Avon Stormwater Management Plan Working Group and the Catchment Projects Working Group, tabled in minutes March 2015. • corresponded with the Prime Minister, Earthquake Minister and Labour MPs, Poto Williams and Ruth Dyson, Greens MP, Eugene Sage, Councillors and the Mayor, Lianne Dalziel • requested that the Marine and Costal area be corrected following the subsidence of the land. This would ensure our protection under the Resource Management Act
4 November 2014 ICNZ press release Recommendation to decision-makers in NZ: The first statement came from Tim Grafton, CEO of ICNZ. “Without risk reduction measures, the cost from natural disasters will increase.” Recommendations from ICNZ include amongst others: • “to take the long-view – require local authorities to deny consent applications where taking the long view shows risks from natural hazards will increase. • high-quality data – establish a high-quality, national natural hazard database to inform decision-making such as the costbenefit trade-offs around risk reduction. • a hazard risk on every property – ensure there is publicly accessible information on the natural hazard risks every property in New Zealand faces.” Source: http://www.icnz.org.nz/action-required-to-protect-newzealand-from-natural-hazards-impact/ Although no insurance companies have refused to cover the risks we face in the coastal area, premiums and excesses could rise significantly for properties with hazard notices, and many policies specifically exclude erosion and subsidence from the scope of cover.
GROUNDWATER LEGEND DEPTH BELOW GROUND LEVEL Groundwater comparison after the September quake 2010 on left and current on right. Source EQC. •
we have drawn attention to the relevant statutory obligations, policies and laws; such as the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement, Marine and Coastal Act 2011, Regional Policy Statement, Soil Conservations and Rivers Act, 1941 References: http://legislation.govt.nz & http://www.ecan.govt.nz/
“Shortcuts on plan a mistake”. This article in the Press included such statements as: “Southern Response, the Government-owned entity that took over AMI’s earthquake liabilities, and Tower Insurance have both complained about council proposals aimed at reducing the risk of flooding in low-lying areas.”…. “Worse than that, some of the greatest damage in the eastern suburbs occurred where a hazard was known but was underestimated and not adequately prepared for. The companies’ idea that they should be allowed to go ahead and rebuild and repair where there may be greater risks suggests they have learnt none of the lessons of the earthquakes.” Source: http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/opinion/ editorials/10728077/Editorial-Shortcuts-on-plan-a-mistake
Despite all these communications, no action has been taken.
What progress has been made on on these matters?
Our latest findings to support our concerns are highlighted by research done by Ashton Eaves, Lincoln University. Reading this research reveals the following: “The coastal hazard risk has not been thoroughly quantified by installation of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (CERA) residential red zone. However, it is also pointed out that the Christchurch City Council’s (CCC) flood management area does provide an extent to which managed coastal retreat is a real option.”
The exact measures that will be taken are still unclear. According to information that SBRA has been privy to, the transition will take some time and at the end of July we will know more about the future of South Brighton. To be safe, it would be best to plan for the worst and hope for the best.
Source: https://researcharchive.lincoln.ac.nz/bitstream/10182/6306/3/eaves_mappsc.pdf
We have now seen the new draft hazard maps for South Brighton and they confirm our concerns. The land is at a significantly increased risk due to loss of elevation and higher groundwater. It appears that new buildings will not be allowed to be built along the estuary due to this high risk. A 30-metre clearance from waterways is also proposed as a part of the district plan. The SBRA has a mandate to be mindful of community wellbeing. We are concerned about the earthquake recovery and concerned that the delay in zoning of the coastal hazard area so late in the process will leave residents’ properties at risk of imminent loss. We continue our communications with the authorities to provide clarity for our community so that people can make informed decisions for their imminent future. If you have questions, please attend the Council meeting on 16 July.
SBRA has engaged with many different entities with the goal of finding out how the authorities are planning for our future.
No householder wants to be in the position where a hazard notice is issued on their property and, at some point in the future, the insurance company revokes cover and the bank refuses a mortgage.
New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 2010 Objective 5 To ensure that coastal hazard risks taking account of climate change, are managed by: • locating new development away from areas prone to such risks; • considering responses, including managed retreat, for existing development in this situation; and • protecting or restoring natural defenses to coastal hazards.
This is what CERA did not consider when the zoning decisions were made. As a consequence development has been allowed in areas prone to such risks. Instead of planning for what lies ahead. Council is now taking steps to protect ratepayers in coastal areas against the risks from climate change. This is to be welcomed as a policy which many cities around the world have been following for some years (for example, Hamburg in Germany invests 22.5 million euros a year on measures to combat climate change). At the same time, however, they have failed to notify residents of the impending risks that resulted from the earthquakes over the last 4 years, and have actually exacerbated these risks through the issue of consents and exemptions in the areas most at risk. They have also failed to mitigate against the risks of erosion in our area by providing adequate stopbanks along the Avon.
Come join the Residents’ Association, Job to be done, fun to be had The SBRA has been busy through the years after the earthquakes. We are also working on various other issues. We need more people to engage and participate in the work that lies ahead. While we will be facing further challenges, it is of immense importance that the community engages and helps to ensure:
• • • •
we are treated as we deserve we get the services that are needed our area is attractive and welcoming the health and wellbeing of the community is protected
We encourage you to participate, since we all have strengths and weaknesses. When we work together our strengths improve and our weaknesses dwindle. Together, we can achieve great things for our community
Information and helpful resources
SBRA - AGM
Community Law Centres www.communitylaw.org.nz
After a busy first half of the year, the SBRA held it’s Annual General Meeting on July 7th. We continue our efforts on beautification and clarification about the long-term view for our suburb.
Free legal assistance
MBIE - Rebuild with Confidence - Guide
http://www.dbh.govt.nz/UserFiles/File/Publications/Building/ Guidance-information/pdf/canterbury-rebuild-guide-forhomeowners.pdf
Earthquake Support and Counselling: Call 0800 777 846 WECAN: www.wecan-nz.com EMPOWERED CHRISTCHURCH : www.EmpoweredChristchurch.co.nz (Source of Self Help Information)
https://www.facebook.com/empoweredchch
SBRA
The new SBRA committee members are: Hugo Kristinsson - Chair, Emma Dagny – Secretary Kirsten Carey – Treasurer General Committee members: Seamus O’Cromtha Lianne O’Brian, Stephen Astwood, Irene Astwood. You can contact SBRA by phone: 388 5236 Email: southbrightonra@gmail.com Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/BrightsideTheSouth
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/BrightsideTheSouth
Chistchurch City Council and Empowered Christchurch have worked together on streamlining an automated process that protects the rights of vulnerable people who are not familiar with construction. Fill in the form here:
http://empoweredchristchurch.co.nz/ccc-notification-email The notification letter does not stop or hinder anything. It just makes sure you are kept informed. Feel free to copy, share or modify to suit your own circumstances.
Shaken and stirred - A Christchurch resident’s story My property was assessed as a rebuild very early on after the February 2011 earthquake, but it is one of a set of two units on a cross lease. My insurance company did not discover this for 14 months and we did not have a meeting with the neighbours, the two insurers and the PMO until July 2013. The only repairs that have been carried out in the 4+ years were to allow me to close my ranch slider and garage door. A PIM was issued by Council for the rebuild in December 2013, but I then discovered that the insurance company planned to claim existing use rights (EUR) and build at the original height. Council stated that this would mean a hazard notice (flooding risk) would be issued, so I declined to sign the building contract. No solution has yet been proposed since then. My property suffered major lateral movement (+1.0 m) and lateral stretch, settlement of 1.0 m and extensive liquefaction. It is now in the EQC IFV (increased flooding vulnerability) and ILV (increased liquefaction vulnerability) categories 8 and 9, but EQC has yet to provide a land report or any information on the level of compensation. I have no wish to end up with a new house with a hazard notice, located on worthless land that I cannot remediate using a nominal compensation amount from EQC (rehabilitation would probably cost hundreds of thousands of dollars), and waiting for the next major earthquake to strike.