The minutes of the AGM have been distributed to the ICA contact list and are also available here. AGM 8May12 minutes.
The AGM was well attended with 21 members present. There was good discussion and three new people have agreed to be on the Committee. Subscriptions ($10 per person) for the 2012/13 are now due – this contribution helps pay for administration of ICA (postage, website domain charges, etc). Click for details for payment.
Attendees were provided with a brief update on a recent meeting the WCC Chief Executive, Garry Poole, Director of Citizen Engagement, Wendy Walker, and Deputy Mayor, Ian McKinnon where Geraldine Murphy and Olivier Lacoua discussed the issues raised by businesses during the ICA awareness campaign in 2011. Further information will be posted on this soon.
We discussed the proposed ICA submission on the Draft Long Term Plan. This has now been submitted after being distributed to members for feedback last week. LTP 2012-22 Submission Geraldine Murphy will speak to the submission at 9.20 am on 29 July.
We have updated our website to add a ‘Related Groups’ tab and will be progressively adding groups that are relevant to inner city residents and businesses. If you know of any group that would be worth including here, please email firstname.lastname@example.org.
There has been a happening this year under the ICA umbrella. As well as the standard AGM activities, there will be an update on activities (EQ subcommittee & ICA awareness campaign to businesses) and a chance to provide feedback on the WCC’s draft Long Term Plan, which will form the basis of ICA’s submission on the plan.
Organisations such as ICA need both continuity and new energy/ideas. We will be calling for nominations for committee positions and I encourage you to consider putting your name forward for nomination.
A copy of the Chair’s report is attached. Chairs report 2011-12 final.
We look forward to seeing you there.
Are you a building or apartment owner in the inner city? We need your assistance to provide the next Minister of Building and Housing with real life examples of the real costs involved in earthquake strengthening ….
ICA has been working proactively with the Wellington City Council as it reviews its Earthquake Prone Buildings Policy in light of the Canterbury earthquakes as these have serious implications for many residents and businesses in Wellington’s inner-city. We want to keep the message simple: The safety issues are of course critically important but we need to have a clear appreciation of the very real costs involved in earthquake strengthening and how these costs are apportioned across the community.
The ICA would now like to present its views to the Minister of Building and Housing (after the election) ahead of the recommendations from the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Canterbury Earthquakes being presented to the Government in the first half of next year.
We want to give the Minister some real life examples of the costs involved at the building level and the issues that will be needed to be addressed to achieve the outcome we all want – safe, secure and sustainably affordable buildings. Any information you provide to us would be kept strictly confidential and no names of buildings or details that identified your building would be used.
We would appreciate any information you could provide on the following:
- The cost to increase your building to 33% of the earthquake building standards (i.e. current code under the Building Act 2004)
- The costs to increase your building to 67% of the current code
- Strengthening options taken by building owners and reasons why i.e. whether you have decided to just aim for the 34% or go further etc.
- Costs of engineering reports required to get to decision point
If you are willing to help please provide this information – and any other comments – by reply to email@example.com by Friday 2 December.
What the ICA has been saying …
Without undermining the very real public safety concerns and issues, the ICA has been highlighting the need for:
- a very clear appreciation of the costs involved in earthquake strengthening (particularly Wellington’s inner-city heritage buildings) and how the costs and benefits are distributed across the community
- certainty for building owners about whether they will face further increases in building standards in the future.
The Council has picked this up in its recent submission (which we commented on) to the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Canterbury Earthquakes:
“In the case of strengthening, the costs fall almost exclusively upon building owners, whereas some of the benefits are external and may be distributed throughout the community.
The Council acknowledges that the responsibility to strengthen buildings lies with the owners however submits there is a legitimate case to consider other financial arrangements if the outcome is preventing a far greater cost to the community (and Government expenditure) at a future point. Options to consider might include insurance arrangements, taxation (deductibility), the role of EQC in preventative interventions and government incentives.
The Council submits that, in assessing and making recommendations on the legal threshold for an EQPB, the Royal Commission considers not only total cost, risk and benefit, but also:
- how those costs, risks and benefits are distributed across the community
- what legislative or other policy frameworks may be appropriate so that the costs and benefits of taking action are appropriately allocated across the community.
- what specific building upgrade factors may warrant public contributions e.g. heritage preservation.
A major issue for inner-city owners of apartments in buildings either already affected by the EPBP or potentially affected if the standards change, is the lack of certainty around what the standards will be in the future.
Most owners are keen to push ahead and do what they need to do to meet the standards (and protect themselves, the public and their buildings) but are worried that further huge capital outlays might be required again in the future if standards continue to change in the lifetime of current owners (i.e. most accept standards change over time it is the frequency of the change and the inability to finance these requirements that is the key issue).”
Derek Fry (WCC) and Inspector Simon Perry (Police) provided a post-RWC summary of outcomes and lessons learned for future events. From their perspective:
- It was a successful event in terms of ticket sales though mixed for different business sectors, with hospitality doing the best, while accommodation and retail did not do as well.
- Crowd management worked well in Courtenay with monitoring and bag searches on entry, and in other fan zone areas, the crowds were generally out to have fun; some of the fan zone areas (eg TSB Arena) had small numbers.
- There was a reduction in crime in Wellington and across the country; stringent monitoring of footprints for bars to enable evacuation if needed was important; police on duty enjoyed the event and found most people were there to have a good time. The problems that occurred were the ‘same troublemakers’.
- An economic analysis of the event is being commissioned to determine if it delivered the economic outcomes expected. It will also look at visitor and resident satisfaction.
Feedback from a few meeting attendees was positive – and a call for the additional street cleaning to continue. (See next post for a chance to provide your feedback).
The same approach to crowd control will be used for the Sevens – which has a very different demographic of crowd, higher alcohol consumption that goes on for longer, more people in town for the activities rather than the rugby. For the Sevens:
- Gated access to Courtenay Place, with less on street entertainment and big screens in that area
- Build on success of waterfront where people can gather pre-during-post the games to spread the experience to more areas
- Align additional licensed spaces with road closures and crowd control requirements.
This was the last meeting for the year. Meetings start again in February 2012.
6 – 7 pm, Comfort Hotel, 213-223 Cuba St.
Derek Fry (WCC) and Inspector Simon Perry (Police) will provide feedback on how the planning, preparation and implementation of those plans went – and lessons learnt. It’ll be an opportunity to provide your views on what went well and what could be improved for the next big event.
Posted in Meetings
Tagged ica, meetings
Read all about ICA, who we represent and what we do. ICA brochure 2011
Posted in Uncategorized
On September 15 2011, WCC’s Strategy and Policy Committee considered a scoping paper on its’ review of Council’s response to earthquake prone buildings.
ICA made a submission on this paper at the meeting. The key points were on:
- the terminology being used to describe multi-unit, multi-storeyed residential buildings and the ‘economic impact’; and
- the availability of information on which WCC’s analysis is being based.
Our submission is attached. Click here for the WCC paper and minutes (p3-4,7-11)
WCC officers Steve Spence, Chief Transport Planner, Tim Kirby, Project Manager Signals and Soon Kong will be at the meeting to give a short presentation and answer your questions.
As WCC has not made its submission on the Buckle St options, it is an opportunity to provide feedback on inner city traffic, cyclist and pedestrian matters.
Tues, 13 Sept, 6pm at Comfort Hotel, 213-223 Cuba St
Public meeting on 22 Aug, 7pm, at Mt Cook School, Tory St in the school hall. NOTE: – the 13th Sept ICA meeting will have WCC speakers talking on how lights are programmed for cars and pedestrians around the inner city. There could be some interesting overlaps.
At the 22nd Aug meeting, the Architecture Centre are going to present the details of the much more desirable underpass – Option X for the Basin Reserve. It’s a much better scheme that separates the state highway from the southern suburbs local traffic without a flyover. It gives the city much more green space and a better less intrusive traffic flow in the area.
This is not able to be considered by NZTA unless lots of public support for Option X is received by NZTA before 26 August.
§ Email your preference for Option X to NZTA firstname.lastname@example.org
§ Or complete more detailed feedback at http://www.nzta.govt.nz/projects/basin-reserve/engagement.html#feedback
More information about the Architectural Centre proposal for the Basin can be found at the following website: http://architecture.org.nz/2011/07/17/the-public-needs-a-real-choice-option-x/
And the same website, has even more detail and additional images of parts of Option X on its home page http://architecture.org.nz/