decisions were made outside of the Act undermined the safeguards, community participation and reviews mandated by the Act. 260 The Court went on to conclude that:141 While we have held that the June 2011 red zone measure should have been introduced under a Recovery Pan, it is obviously now too late for this to occur. In practical terms, a declaration as the unlawfulness of the June 2011 decisions would not serve any useful purpose and none is made. 261 The Government was directed to reconsider the offers it made. Following the development of a Residential Red Zone Offer Recovery Plan under the CER Act, new offers were made on the following terms:  100% of the 2007 RV for vacant section owners; and  100% of the 2007 RV of the land alone and nothing for improvements for uninsured residential property owners. 262 Sixteen of the original claimants have recommenced judicial review proceedings to challenge the validity of these new offers. The Commission is still considering whether it will intervene in this case. 263 The Waimakariri District Council has just released its Preliminary Draft Residential Red Zone Recovery Plan. In that Plan the Council confirmed that property owners in the red zone, who declined the Crown’s buyout offer would continue to have essential services to their properties maintained. The Council also anticipates that some former red zone property owners might be able to buy back or lease their sections and is investigating this option further. 264 By contrast the Christchurch District Council is currently proposing district plan changes based on the red zone designation. This is being done through the establishment of a temporary special purpose zone pending the full development of the Red Zone Recovery Programme. The Commission considers that this is the proper mechanism to determine the appropriate use of the red zone land. In a similar vein to the circumstances around the offers, imposing a greater level of restriction on building and development than the Operative Plan provisions at this stage can be seen as a signal to the very small number of property owners in the red zone that remaining is not a priority. The continued delays and uncertainty for those who remain in the red zone have severely impacted on their health and wellbeing. Any ongoing uncertainty - by imposing a special zone with inferences about the future land use - can be expected to exacerbate the negative impact of the Crown’s 141 Ibid at [205]. Page 68 of 93 Human Rights Commission submission to the Human Rights Committee in relation to New Zealand’s 6th periodic review under the ICCPR