Lottery Environment and Heritage LEH-2017-48098
Institute for World Evangelisation - ICPE Mission (New Zealand Branch)
▼ Table Of Contents
ORGANISATION DETAILS
REQUEST DETAILS
AMOUNT REQUESTED
PROJECT RESOURCES & REQUIREMENTS
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
DOCUMENT CHECK
INTERNAL ASSESSMENT WORKBOOK
RECOMMENDATIONS
DECISION
COMMITMENT
WRITEBACK
NOTIFICATION OF DECISION
GENERATE GRANT AGREEMENT
REPORTS SCHEDULE
PAYMENT SCHEDULE
GRANT AGREEMENT
SIGNED AGREEMENT
TRANSACTION HISTORY
MONITOR AND CLOSE
CUSTOMER COMMUNICATIONS
AUDIT HISTORY
INFORMATION FOR STAFF: WORKFLOW
▼ STAFF ONLY: CHECKING SIGNATORIES
Out of scope
▼ STAFF ONLY: CHANGE PRIMARY CONTACT
Edit this request to change the Primary Contact
Status
48 Grant Completed and Closed
Programme:
Lottery Environment and Heritage
Sub Programme:
Lottery Environment and Heritage
Round:
EH00 Round 1 (EH)
Financial Year: 16/17
Submit Date: 25 July 2016
Allocation/Decision Meeting:
Manager:
Joe Grace
Committee Coordinator:
Lynne Dowling
Advisor:
Freya Burgess
ASSIGNED ADVISOR FILTER/EXPORT
This field is in the export, and can be used to filter by multiple names
Assigned to assess:
▼ COMMITTEE / EXTERNAL EXPERT REVIEW
Out of scope
Review States:
20 Pending Committee Review
Reviewers:
LWEH Reviewer
Reviewer Group:
Lottery Environment and Heritage Committee
Theme:
Committee Reviewer Form
ORGANISATION DETAILS
Organisation:
Institute for World Evangelisation - ICPE Mission (New Zealand
Branch)
city/town:
Wel ington
Primary contact for this request
9(2)(a)
Person who can sign the grant agreement 9(2)(a)
if offered. Signatory 1
Person who can sign the grant agreement 9(2)(a)
if offered. Signatory 2
Signature 1 Personal profile ID: 1212951 last logged in at: 31 July 2018
Signature 2 Personal profile ID: 1213185 last logged in at: 8 November 2016
Confirm Organisation Details
organisation email
[email address]
bank account
Bank account details are current
GST registration
Registered
If these details are not correct (including bank account verification document is for your current bank
account) your profile secretary must correct these details on your organisation profile.
Confirmation that our organisation
I confirm
details are correct:
REQUEST DETAILS
Find information on Lottery Environment and Heritage at Community Matters - Lottery Environment and Heritage
Request Created on Behalf of Customer:
What do you want funding
for?
To part fund a 2nd engineering assessment to ascertain the seismic strength of St Gerard' s Church and Monastery
in Wel ington. The buildings are "yel ow sticker-ed" and must be brought up to at least 34% of the Code (NBC).The
initial seismic assessment, by a different firm of enginerrers, was costed at $10 mil ion to achieve 67% of the NBC.
However the ICPE as owners of the building and the St Gerard's Maintenance and Restoration Trust (which is the
secular fund raising vehicle for the needed work), unanimously agreed, that a 2nd assessment be undertaken by a
new firm of engineers. We are hopeful that an alternative approach may be less costly
What community need do you propose to
meet?
St Gerard's Church and Monastery is the most prominent heritage building in Wel ington. It has Category 1 listing
from Heritage New Zealand and heritage protection through the WCC District Plan, also at the highest level;
including view shaft protection so that it can never be built out.
The buildings feature on many paintings and photographs of Wel ington because of their prominence above
Oriental Bay.The people of the City of Wel ington are united in wanting the buildings to remain part of the landscape
for generations to come and bringing the buildings up to the NBC wil achieve that outcome.
How will you address the
need?
By determining the current earthquake resilience of the buildings (the Monastery may already meet the NBC
requirement), and the cost of bringing the two buildings up to the NBC, then raising the necessary funds and
completing the work. Al of this is a legal requirement..
Project name\title:
2nd Engineering Assessment
What is the project start date?
10/2/2016
What is the project end date?
30/11/2016
FUNDING BENEFIT LOCATION
Where wil the benefit of this grant request be realised?
Location
Wel ington City
NGĀ HUA/OUTCOMES
What are the expected
benefits/outcomes?
The preservation of the buildings, including after earthquakes, for future generations
Mahinga/activities: briefly describe your project or planned
activities:
Once the engineering assessment has been completed and plans drawn up of the structural alterations needed to
achieve at least 34% of the NBC, costings wil be prepared by a quantity surveyor to ascertain the cost.. A major
fundraising campaign wil then be undertaken by the St Gerard's Maintenance and Restoration Trust and when the
funds are to hand,the work required wil be carried out, fol owing the gaining of the necessary resource consents
and a tender process to select the builder. Dunning Thornton wil remain involved as the oversight engineers..
How do you know this is
needed?
It is a legal requirement under the 2004 Building Act.
How will you achieve
it?
With the support of the people of Wel ington and beyond. The fundraising effort wil be coordinated by a
professional fundraising consultancy firm. They have already carried out a preliminary scoping study including
interviews with several high net worth Wel ingonians.
How will you show you have achieved
it?
This wil be a physical reality when the work has been completed.
How do you know the community supports your project? (e.g. What community consultation has taken
place and is the project supported by local hapu and iwi?):
We have huge and wide spreed support from the people of Wel ington, the WCC, Heritage NZ and the Government.
St Gerard's Church has weekly masses and a number of other ongoing events (marriages and funerals) and
activities (young peoples groups, prayer meetings etc.) but has its own costs to meet from offerings.
What community participation/collaboration will be
involved?
There wil be a public fundraising with, it is hoped, the support of the local news papers and the WCC.
How does your request align with the purpose or priorities of this
fund?
Through its highest possible heritage importance to the Capital City.
FUNDING BENEFIT ETHNICITY
Please select the ethnic groups or communities which wil benefit from your activities or project.
Ethnicity
Al
Middle Eastern/Latin American/African (MELAA)
Asian
Pacific Peoples
European
Māori
Other Ethnicity:
AMOUNT REQUESTED
If you are GST registered, the amounts should be exclusive of GST.
If you are not GST registered, the amounts should be inclusive of GST.
What is the total amount you are
$35,000.00
requesting?
FINANCIAL INFORMATION
What is the total cost of the project?
$82,000.00
Percent of project:
42.682926829
Is your request for a plan or report?
no
PARTNERSHIP FUNDING
How much partnership funding has been $47,000.00
secured for this project?
partnership funding %
57.317073171
Partnership funding and amount requested should not exceed 100% of the total cost of the project
Partnership funding + requested
100
amount as % of project cost:
PROJECT RELATIONSHIPS
Please provide contact details for the organisations, agencies or bodies who are involved in col aborating with your
organisation on this project?
Project Col aborators
Collaborator Type: Organisation
Collaborator Name: St Gerard's Maintenance and Restoration Trust
Contact Name: 9(2)(a)
Contact Details Phone: 9(2)(a)
Email: 9(2)(a)
Address: 9(2)(a)
Give details of any projects or services being provided which are similar to your
project:
The role of the Trust, as set out above, wil be to fund raise so that the work can be completed.
PROJECT RESOURCES AND REQUIREMENTS
Have you secured resource consent for Not Applicable
the project?
Have you secured building consent for
Not Applicable
the project?
Does your organisation own the land the Yes
project will be on?
Will your organisation own the facility/site Yes
once the project has been completed?
Tell us about how your organisation will manage the facility, outlining how to fund the ongoing
maintenance and running costs for the project:
This application is just for the engineering assessment, which is needed to establish how the building can be
strengthened to comply with the relevant legal requirements for earthquake prone buildings.
Who is, or wil be, responsible for managing this project?
Project Lead Name:
Dunning Thornton Consulting Engineers
Project Lead Email:
Project Lead Phone:
0
Project Lead
Qualifications:
Dunning Thornton is an established engineering consultancy and has undertaken the design and oversight for the
seismic strengthening of many buildings in Wel ington and beyond. They are highly regarded by building owners in
Wel ington, having brought many such projects to a successful conclusion, in line with the Building Act 2004
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
Refer to Community Matters
Required Documents:
Project budget
Project Plan and timeline
Quotes, contracts and/or quantity surveyor reports
Partnership funding: evidence of one third funds secured or raised - not required for feasibility study,
conservation plan or specialist report requests
2 Letters of support for your project
Required for some projects depending on the nature of your project
Detailed job descriptions for any project related salaries identified in the budget
Professional independent endorsement of the project, appropriate to the sector (for capital works projects in
museums and art gal eries and major restoration projects)
Resource consent approval - where required for capital works projects
Landownership: evidence of project support from legal owner and proof of ongoing access for general public
for capital works projects
Concept drawings or floor plans - for capital works projects
Resource consent approval - where required for capital works projects
Required for large projects (total project cost over $250,000)
A completed feasibility study
Any specialist or conservation reports, restoration plans or col ection policies - check website for requirements
Required for feasibility study, conservation plan or specialist report requests:
A detailed requirements brief
Required for historical projects
Chapter outline
Main sources
Required for book publication projects
Synopsis of proposed book
One chapter of draft text or manuscript
Confirmation of the proposed sel ing price of the book
Additional Supporting Documentation
Any additional supporting documents you believe provide critical information to support your request
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
ICPE Mission NZ Financial Statements year ended 31 Dec
2015.pdf
Financial Statement: year-to-date or performance (LEH) Added by Freya Burgess at 12:34 PM on 6 October 2016
Re draft LEH
request.msg
Supporting Document; additional Added by Joanne Becker at 8:19 AM on 27 July
2016
Re LEH Request - ICPU Mission.msg
Supporting Document; additional Added by Joanne Becker at 8:03 AM on 27 July
2016
Certificate of title page 2.jpeg
Landownership: evidence of project support (LEH) Added by 9(2)(a)
at 1:02 PM on 25 July
2016
Certificate of title St
Gerard's.jpeg
Landownership: evidence of project support (LEH) Added by 9(2)(a)
at 1:02 PM on 25 July
2016
ICPE- 2015 Draft
Accounts.pdf
Financial Statement: year-to-date or performance (LEH) Added by 9(2)(a)
at 1:01 PM on 25 July 2016
Image (96).jpg
Partnership Funding: Evidence of funds secured or raised (LEH)
Added by 9(2)(a)
at 1:00 PM on 25 July 2016
Letter of Support Heritage New
Zealand.pdf
Evidence of community support and consultation (LEH)
Added by 9(2)(a)
at 2:12 PM on 22 July 2016
Letter from Mayor of Wel ington to
Lotteries.jpeg
Evidence of local, regional, or district council support (LEH)
Added by 9(2)(a)
at 12:12 PM on 22 July 2016
ICPE Seismic Strengthening SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
Timetable.docx
Project plan and timeline (LEH) Added by 9(2)(a)
at 12:11 PM on 22 July
2016
Dunning Thornton Preliminary Engagement letter.pdf
Quotes, contracts and/or quantity surveyor reports (LEH)
Added by 9(2)(a)
at 12:08 PM on 22 July 2016
Image (95).jpg
Letter of Support (LEH) Added by 9(2)(a)
at 11:47 AM on 22 July
2016
Budget for 2nd earthquake engineering assessment ICPE.docx
Budget (LEH) Added by 9(2)(a)
at 5:29 PM on 20 July
2016
▼ DOCUMENT CHECK
Does customer need to be notified due to No
incomplete request?
▼ CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Conflict of Interests that show here: - al conflict of interests that were created from here
- any conflict of interest with the organisation making this request
Recording a Conflict of Interest (COI)
Add a COI here if the COI is with the organisation making the request, or with a person within the organisation.
To add a new COI, click the button and complete the form.
NGĀKAU KŌNATUNATU / CONFLICT OF INTEREST
▼ INTERNAL ASSESSMENT WORKBOOK
Out of scope
Out of scope
CUSTOMER ENGAGEMENT FOR THIS REQUEST
Observations and report on customer discussion (phone, skype,
email):
Email correspondence to request updated 2015 financial accounts.
Visit/customer engagement date:
17/8/2016
Visit or customer engagement by:
Freya Burgess
Additional
Commentary:
Customer was prompt to respond and supply the updated accounts.
Note: Any additional assessment documents provided during customer engagement should be uploaded in
"Community Operations Internal Documents"
REPORT COMMENT - Request eligibility and alignment with fund
criteria:
Institute for World Evangelisation – ICPE Mission (New Zealand Branch) is seeking funding for the preparation of
second engineering assessment of the St Gerard’s Church and Monastery in Wel ington.
The customer met Lottery Grants Board and Lottery Environment and Heritage (LEH) eligibility requirements.
Partnership funding is not a requirement for specialist plans and reports. However, the organisation has tagged
$22,000 of internal funding towards the project and has submitted an application to the Wel ington City Council Built
Heritage Fund for the shortfal of $25,000.
The project plan satisfactorily supports the request.
This request is a report that wil guide a project which wil restore, protect and conserve a place that is important to
our history.
COMMUNITY OUTCOMES
Will contribute to/support the community achieving its outcomes or
aspirations:
See below
Assessment of regional and/or national significance of
project:
See below
Community need (including assessment on identification of community need and the community support
for the project):
See below
Evidence of community
collaboration:
See below
REPORT COMMENT - Intended community benefits of project (including assessment of the benefits that
will be realised):
Satisfactory community support for the project was provided by Celia Wade-Brown, Mayor of Wel ington City
Council and the Mt Victoria Historical Society. Given the request is for a seismic assessment these letters are
satisfactory.
The project has local, regional and national significance as the St Gerard’s Church and Monastery is listed as a
Category I historic place by Heritage New Zealand, has protection through the Wel ington City Council District Plan
and is considered one of the most iconic landmarks in Wel ington due to its exterior red brickwork and cliff-top site.
Professional endorsement for the project was provided by Heritage New Zealand.
The project has been assessed against the Lottery Grants Board’s general policy principles, key application criteria
and key funding objects and aligns with these.
Community col aboration is not possible at this stage of the project, given the request is for a structural engineering
report. These specialist reports are not projects that the wider community can actively engage in.
ALIGNMENT WITH FUND PURPOSE AND OUTCOMES
Tātai Pūtea Funding Scheme Outcomes : New Zealand’s history has been preserved for future generations.
REPORT COMMENT - Alignment with fund purpose and
outcomes:
This project aligns with the fund’s purpose as it wil restore, protect and conserve a place that is important to our
history.
The project wil contribute towards fund outcomes by preserving New Zealand’s history for future generations.
EVIDENCE THAT REQUEST MEETS FUNDER'S PRIORITIES
Priorities:
delivering a community benefit of a public nature for New Zealand
communities., enhancing the preservation of places, structures or
objects with proven heritage significance
REPORT COMMENT - Comment on request alignment with funder's
priorities:
This is a single stand-alone project that aligns with the Committee’s physical heritage priorities.
The project wil restore and protect a place of significance to our history and protect and conserve a place for the
future.
The Committee regularly funds the preparation of specialist reports including structural engineering report when an
applicant wishes to either restore or conserve a heritage building, structure or large built object.
The organisation previously had prepared an initial seismic assessment completed by a different firm (Clendon
Burns & Park) which was estimated at $10,000,000 to achieve 67% of the NBS. The organisation is seeking a peer
review of the detailed structural assessment in the hope that an alternative approach may be more cost effective.
This shows robust project planning on behalf of the organisation.
ASSESSMENT OF ABILITY TO DELIVER
Project manager involved in the project: No
First Time Applicant:
No
Comment on previous grants history from legacy systems and any watchlist issues
identified:
See below
Current issues
identified:
Nil
Having reviewed the customer's grants
No
history, is the level of funds requested
here uncharacteristic?
Is the budget and proposed expenditure Yes
appropriate?
Is the planning provided appropriate to
Yes
the scale and complexity of the
proposal?
Are there appropriate resources available Yes
to undertake and complete this initiative?
Is the organisation experienced in
Yes
delivering activities of similar scope,
scale and complexity?
REPORT COMMENT - Ability to deliver: summary comment on governance, management, and financial
performance, and previous experience of initiatives of similar scope:
Project planning supporting this request was appropriate to the scale and complexity of the project. Given the
request is for the preparation of a specialist report, there are no concerns over the organisation’s ability to deliver
the project.
The budget and proposed expenditure is appropriate to the nature of the project.
In June 2010, the organisation received an LEH grant of $10,000 towards the preparation of an engineering report
for the seismic strengthening of St Gerard’s Church and Monastery. The grant accountability has been satisfactorily
finalised. In April 2014 the organisation requested $3,000,000 to earthquake strengthen the church and monastery
but subsequently withdrew the request. An application was then submitted by St Gerard’s Maintenance and
Restoration Trust for the same project. The Committee declined the request as the project was stil at a very early
stage of development. The Committee said it would welcome another application when the project is more
developed and when at least one third of the total cost of the project had been secured.
Audited accounts for the year ended 31 December 2015 show a surplus of $77,631 from a total income of
$364,325. The majority of this income was from donations and income from programmes. At balance date, the
organisation had positive working capital of 6 months’ usual operating costs.
ASSESSMENT OF RISK
Organisation financial analysis not completed
RISK INDICATORS
Org High Risk Indicator: Less than 3 months Working Capital
Likelihood of non compliance
Failing to Supply Results Report On Time 2
(1 = not likely; 5 = very likely):
Failing to supply Results Report at all (1 1
= not likely; 5 = very likely) :
Advisor's opinion of request risk (1=low 1
risk; 5=high risk):
Provide comment on why you identified this level of
risk:
This wil be a relatively straightforward and low risk project for the experienced professional preparing the report.
The organisation has previously received an LEH grant and is capable of successful y managing a further grant of
similar size and scope.
Accountability report submitted over six months late for LEH grant.
REPORT COMMENT - Organisation's capacity, maturity, and capability in relation to the amount of funding
requested and complexity of what is proposed:
The structural engineering assessment wil be completed by an independent assessor who has the relevant
qualifications and expertise to complete the report.
Management of a project of the scope and complexity of this request is within the group’s resources.
The project is wel designed, planned and managed and the organisation has the to deliver a successful project.
Further mitigation required if grant is
No
recommended:
Which other fund could assist the applicant?
▼ RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendation:
Fund
Total amount recommended:
$35,000.00
Recommendation
Reason:
The Committee considered the request aligned wel with Lottery Grants Board outcomes and this Committee’s
physical heritage priorities and funding criteria.
Recommended excluded costs or expenditure (fund
specific):
Recommended Pre-Payment
Conditions:
Recommended Ara poutama/milestone 1 reporting and/or payment
conditions:
Recommended Ara poutama/milestone 2 reporting and/or payment
conditions:
Recommended additional terms and conditions to manage
risks:
Recommended Grant Agreement start
26/10/2016
date:
Recommended Grant Agreement end
7/12/2017
date:
▼ OUTCOMES
Common Investment Type:
Community Projects, Capital Works Projects
Pūtake Pūtea Funding Source Outcomes: Promote community participation, inclusion and identity
Komiti Pūtea Funding Committee
Physical heritage projects enabled
Outcomes:
DECISION
Decision :
Fund
Decision date:
26/10/2016
Total amount awarded:
$35,000.00
Decision
Reason:
The Committee has chosen to ful y fund your request. It considered the project to have strong alignment with
Lottery Grants Board outcomes and the Committee's physical heritage priorities and funding criteria.
The Committee thanks you for applying to the Lottery Environment and Heritage Committee and wishes you every
success with the project.
Percentage of project cost %
42.682926829
Percentage of requested amount %
100
Include Excluded Costs or Expenditure: No
Include pre-payment conditions:
No
Include Ara poutama/milestone 1
No
reporting and/or payment conditions:
Include Ara poutama/milestone 2
No
reporting and/or payment conditions:
Include Ara poutama/ milestone 3
reporting and/or conditions:
Include additional terms and conditions: No
COMMITMENT
Funding Sources
Amount:
$35,000.00
Source:
16/17 LGB
Initiatives:
Lottery Environment and Heritage, Lottery Environment and Heritage
Financial Year:
2017
$35,000.00 Total Funding
$35,000.00 Grant Amount
$0.00 Difference
Amount Paid to Date:
$35,000.00
Pending Payment:
$0.00
▼ WRITEBACK
▼ INFO FOR STAFF: WRITEBACK PROCESS
Out of scope
Out of scope
Add a writeback
Out of scope
NOTIFICATION OF DECISION
Decision information that displays to customer at stage 43 final decline or from stage 29 onward
Decision: Fund
Grant Awarded: $35,000.00
Decision Reason: It was noted that The Committee has chosen to ful y fund your request. It considered the project
to have strong alignment with Lottery Grants Board outcomes and the Committee's physical heritage priorities and
funding criteria. The Committee thanks you for applying to the Lottery Environment and Heritage Committee and
wishes you every success with the project.
Date notified: 2 November 2016
GENERATE GRANT AGREEMENT
Out of scope
Out of scope
Out of scope
Out of scope
Out of scope
DOCUMENTS FOR REVIEWERS
REVIEWER DOCUMENTS
Out of scope
INTERNAL DOCUMENTS
COMMUNITY OPERATIONS INTERNAL DOCUMENTS
Out of scope
2016
COMMUNITY OPERATIONS INTERNAL DOCUMENTS
Out of scope
Monitoring Activities
Relationships
Ad Hoc Emails
Out of scope
SYSTEM GENERATED EMAILS
Out of scope
2018
SYSTEM GENERATED EMAILS
Out of scope
WORKFLOW NOTES
Out of scope
Out of scope
AUDIT HISTORY
HISTORY
Show History
▼ INFORMATION FOR STAFF: WORKFLOW
Out of scope
Out of scope
Document Outline
