Earlier this month, CERA released their Draft Transition Recovery Plan Greater Christchurch Earthquake Recovery: Transition to Regeneration which sets out proposals for the transition of central government’ s role in the recovery to long-term arrange
If you’ve read through the Recovery Plan, you might still be unsure of what comments you’d like to make regarding the city’s long-term road to recovery.
We’ve summarised the main points from the Plan to give Christchurch residents a last overview before submitting their comments by Thursday’s 5pm deadline.
Click here to download the Draft Transition Recovery Plan and comment form.
Following the February 2011 earthquakes, it became clear that effective earthquake recovery would require timely decisions that would not be possible under the current legislation.
The Canterbury Earthquake Recovery (CER) Act gave powers to individuals such as the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery and the Chief Executive of CERA to make decisions on recovery functions. Many powers within the CER Act that related to the emergency phase of the recovery are now no longer needed and will be allowed to expire.
The Government’s proposal is that new legislation is needed to support recovery work that will continue after the CER Act expires on 18 April 2016. It’s proposed that the new Act will exist for five years, be subject to a review after three years, and apply to a smaller geographical area. The new Act will be more focused on reconstruction and long-term regeneration.
Examples of powers and provisions that the Government proposes will be needed in the new legislation include (See all in Chapter 3)
Powers to allow recovery works, including demolitions, to continue
Powers to allow new Recovery (now to be call Regeneration Plans) to be developed
Public safety provisions, including access restrictions
Appropriate checks and balances to ensure there are various forms of mitigation or limits on the exercise of any powers, including continuing the Community Forum to all for meaningful participation of community representatives.
Point to consider when answering question one:
Which powers should be maintained to keep the recovery momentum flowing?
Driving business confidence and investment in the central city are some of the key challenges we are faced with at this critical stage of recovery. To date, CERA has been responsible for the Christchurch Central Recovery Plan (2012) and provided leadership developed frameworks, facilitated investment and drove construction of major projects.
Today, the Crown and Christchurch City Council are investigating the establishment of a new entity, “Regenerate Christchurch.” This entity could have similar characteristics and functions as an urban development authority.
Over 3-7 years it is expected that responsibility for regeneration of the central city will progressively transfer to the Christchurch City Council.
Points to consider when answering questions two and three:
Is “Regenerate Christchurch” the best entity to drive the next stage of the central city’s recovery?
Will the transition to “Regenerate Christchurch” increase momentum for business confidence and investment?
In 2012, the Recovery strategy set out high level goals and priorities for all components of recovery. These goals were a guide to the government, individuals, communities and organisations in Christchurch.
Today, the Christchurch recovery remains a top priority for the government. As central government’s role in the recovery evolves from one of leadership to supporting local institutions, it’s timely to consider how best to demonstrate the Government’s ongoing commitment to the recovery. A new approach is needed to ensure that central government agencies remain focussed on, and are held accountable for critical recovery issues (i.e. improving people’s well being, revitalising central Christchurch etc.) It is essential that the five critical recovery issues (as outlined in Chapter 8) are prioritized by those appointed with responsibilities.
Recovery will be long-term process (five to ten years) and these issues will require continued attention. A method proposed for regular monitoring and reporting on progress of these recovery issues is to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery and the public.
Points to consider when answering questions four and five:
Should other entities be considered when reporting on recovery issues?
Have all the critical issues been addressed?