LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION

Press, Volume LXXXIV, Issue 25638, 29 October 1948, Page 10

LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION

Greater Christchurch

Proposals

FINAL ADDRESSES BY COUNSEL

Opposition by the Riccarton Borough Council and the Heathcote County Council to amalgamation claims by the City Council was expressed when counsel for the borough and the county made their final addresses to the Local Government Commission yesterday. Both contended that the City Council had failed to prove that there would be more efficient administration if the areas came into .the city.

For Heathcote, Mr A. C. Perry urged that persons in the area affected should have the right to a poll on the future of their area and added that his own opinion was that Christchurch should also have a poll on whether the areas should he amalgamated. He thought the city ratepayers should have had a say on the amalgamation of New Brighton.

There was complete civic life in Riccarton, said Mr E. W. White, and it was claimed that there was wisdom in leaving Riccarton to cater for development to the west. There was a statutory right for Riccarton to petition for a poll, he said, but he urged the commission, if it had any doubt, to recommend that the borough should be given the right to a poll without petition.

Criticism of the Drainage and Tramway Boards was expressed by Mr G. W. Dell (for the Riccarton branch of the Labour Party), who favoured the City Council’s application for the absorption of the functions of both boards, and Riccarton borough, and parts of Heathcote, Halswell, Paparua, and Waimairi counties.

Mr Dell also said that many young persons were frustrated in their search for sections, and said that if the commission could arrange anything that would give relief its protracted sitting would be worth while.

HEATHCOTE COUNTY’S CASE

“I submit that it will be necessary to ensure that the termination of a local body which has served its electors well for 75 years is not done on reasons which are merely nebulous or abstractions,” said Mr Perry, “but that the commission will require evidence of good solid advantages for the residents of the county, as well as for the residents of the city. The residents of the county are the people vitally concerned. They are the people who have to draw the cheque, and the people who had the right in the past to come into the city, and who have not availed themselves of that right.” He wondered why a small area of tussock land had been excluded from the City Council’s application, Mr Parry continued. It was not because it was tussock country? as the city had such country within its boundaries; and not because it was unlikely to become urbanised, as there were other such areas in the city. More than 90 per cent, of the area of Heathcote sought by the city was undeveloped. and there had been evidence that two-thirds of the county would continue to be rural for the next 25 years, he said. The City Council had not been backward in criticising the presence of built-up areas in counties: but what reasons did it give for wanting to include in its boundaries larce areas of farm or pastoral lend? The strongest reasons must, be given for the inclusion of rural areas in urban local authorities’ areas, particularly in Christchurch. wh?re rates were levied on unimoroved valufi.

One reason given was that th 4 land was needed for drainage, but drainage functions could well be left to Ihe county, the Drainage Board, or the Catchment Board. Built-up Areas Of the three built-uo areas in the county. Cashmere. Heathcote township. and the Pages road-Wrinoni roa i area, only the last-mentioned might be referred to as a "spill-over” from the city. The Avon-Bromley riding had al’ the amenities it would get in the city except high-pressure wate’-. and aoa from a petition presented bv Mr S. H Fournier, there had been r'* move by the residents for amalgamation. Heathcote townshin. se’'ara+ed the city bv some miles of nn J evplor>o- 1 land, had no community of interest w’th the city Mr Perry said. Tf was fair to say that the metropolitan town planning scheme envisaged Heathcote

becotning a residential area, but that could only happen if the tunnel road went through, and if market gardeners in the area were willing to give up their living and sell their land. Mr Perry doubted whether they would sell, as there were few pockets of fertile land for market gardens elsewhere. “What is the real reason for asking to bring Cashmere into the city?” Mr Perry continued. “I would say the rating Cashmere riding had provided itself with electricity, water, and drainage, he said, and had asked for no assistance. If. now, Cashmere residents were asked to share in the cost of such things as a town hall, they were willing to shoulder their obligations, as they had done in the past. The city had nothing to offer them in return for increased rates. They should not be called on to bear the burdens of undeveloped areas in the city. Discussing the petition presented by Mr Fournier, Mr Perry said that it was signed by about a quarter of the residents of the area. When in the witness-box. Mr Fournier had not criticised the county’s administration, but said the riding was poor. The area was zoned as rural. *• Few peoole who. signed petitions directed their attention to rating, and fully considered different rating systems. Mr Perry said. There could, however, be no criticism of the petition by Cashmere residents, which merely asked for the right to take a poll. “The City Council has had no friends to come forward and sneak for it.” said Mr Perry. “Practically the whole of its case was based on the evidence of councillors or officials. One would have expected that there would have been many organisations in the city anxious to sneak on behalf of the citv. Perhans their absence indicates that lhe citizen of Christchurch does not regard this issue as vital.” Speaking as counsel, and not on nehalf of Heathcote. Mr Perry said that a metropolitan board of works could be formed, with th<= Drainage Board as its baris. and with the control of water added to its functions. If there had been such a board in the past, he thought there would have been few requests for amalgamation with the city, as many of the petitioners for amalgamation in the past had wanted high-pressure water more than anything else.

RICCARTON’S OPPOSITION

All the candidates who opposed amalgamation of the borough of Riccarton with the city had been elected at the last election for the council, Mr White said. The borough council had met all fair criticism, and it had met it in advance, Mr White emphasised. Its case had not been altered since the commission opened, and before the City Council’s case was presented. The borough’s position was somewhat different from that of the other i “defendants,” as it already had borough status. There had been no suggestion that it was not efficiently organised and administered. “If it were not for this question of sharing of amenities, there would be no case to answer, as there is no evidence that the City Council can give more efficient administration. to Riccarton,” Mr White said. "I am not admitting that amenities are a sufficient ground for amalgamation." Riccarton had developed its own water supply and had been careful to install standard city fittings throughout, so that the scheme could easily be linked to the city’s system. The water supply of Riccarton was not going to interfere with the city’s development, as was contended before the Parliamentary committee on local government. There were many individual water supply schemes in Riccarton which could be linked with the borough’s scheme for co-ordination. The borough had its own electric power supply, and its charges compared more than favourably with those in the city. Great progress had been made and a number of large industries in the borough were supplied with power. "They talk of efficient administration of technical matters in the city,” Mr White said. “Why then the arrears of the inspection of electrical installations? It is admitted that that exists in the city. The position is not so in Riccarton, where technical matters are up to date.” There had been uninformed criticism of traffic control in the borough and of men thoroughly trained and competent to do the job, Mr White said. The commission had heard the evidence of Transport Department officers, and he was sure there was nothing to add to it. “Comparisons are odious, but on the

whole cur rates are lower than in the city," Mr White continued. "I am talking to experts in such matters, so will leave it at that.” Discussing the cross-examination of witnesses, Mr White said frequent reference had been made to a large map of the metropolitan area which showed the Municipal Electricity Department’s area, with Riccarton borough outlined in green. “Time and again it was put to witnesses: ‘Don’t you think it is anomalous to have Ihe island’,” Mr White said. “That seemed to me to be fatuous, and I got tired of it. It does not interfere with the development of the city. You only know it is an island because on the map it is coloured green.” Mr J. W. Andrews (a commissioner): That is the only way we know it is not a part of Christchurch. Mr White: Yes, sir, that is true. And vice versa. Mr White said he would make no reference to Hagley Park, as the matter had been cleared up during the hearing, but the City Council still spoke as though it owned the park, when it was only a trustee. Asked by Mr Andrews whether he thought there was a case for an extension of Riccarton’s boundaries, taking in, say, Fendalton, Mr White said: "I do indeed, but the question is whether it should come now. Development is taking place to the west, and it would be a great pity to lose sight of the fact that the growth of a twin city has started. "I am afraid the rating potential has a big influence in the public mind,. although it is clearly not a basis for amall gamation claims," Mr White said.. “Thdre has been a good deal of reference to text books, and a good deal of opinion, but they are not facts.” he said. “We say that the City Council not only did. not produce factual evidence, but that it did not give the commission the assistance it should have by saying what should happen to the remainder of the counties. In its conception the case for amalgamation was a purely selfish thing. I think you were entitled to know whether the City Council was competent to handle these extra areas. Has it shown that it is competent to administer what it has? It has very great burdens in New Brighton and Sumner.

POLL ON RATING WANTED

Mr Dell opened his submissions by referring to the petition which Parliament had referred to the commission. It sought the right for ratepayers in the Drainage Board's district to petition for a poll to decide the system of rating to be adopted by the board. “Evidently the Drainage Board thinks its ratepayers have not the same intelligence as people elsewhere,” said Mr Dell, after he had referred to the board’s opinion that a poll should not be allowed. "This shows that the board is reactionary, and it is another argument for its abolition.” The board had failed to refute the charges made against It, he continued. “Having failed in their present area they want a larger area,” he said. "They wish to go to the Styx river and take over the land drainage there. I don’t think there is any reason to think they would be more successful there than they have been in the city. They have failed to sewer thousands of houses in the present area, but they want to go to Belfast and put sewers in there. I think land drainage in the area could well be handled by the Catchment Board, and the sewerage of Belfast by the Waimairi County Council.” “Pig in a Poke” Referring to the Tramway Board, which *he said had also failed to answer any of the charges against it. Mr Dell said: “Members say they cannot carry on unless they raise a loan of £1,300,000. They cannot tell the ratepayers what that is going to cost in rates. They are asking the ratepayers to buy a pig in a poke.” During the hearing there had been references to the democratic right of ratepayers in the affected- areas to’have a ; poll, he continued. While he favoured 1 polls, he thought nothing could be more democratic than the elected representatives of the people deciding on a method of bringing about ordered planning and |

, extension, and they had done this by | appointing the commission. . . i It was manifestly unfair that Fendalton. ! where some of the wealthiest people in Christchurch lived, should receive a subsidy of £llOO a year to assist backward counties, Mr Dell said. "Christchurch is being strangled because there is no room for further development,” he continued. "The citv is surrounded by small local bodies which do not appear to be very interested in industrial development, and it is burdened with ad hoc bodies which tend to make ' confusion worse confounded.” In the last two years most of the rental i houses in Christchurch had been built by ! the State, Mr Dell said. Young men and women were searching for sections reticulated with sewers and high-pressure water, but they were being frustrated at every turn. Thy had to go to the expense of installing septic tanks, wells, and pumps, and when amalgamation with the city took place they had to scrap what they had installed, and pay more for sewerage and high-pressure water. “This vitally affects the backbone of the city—the young men and women who strive to make a home for themselves,” Mr Dell continued. ”1 have not the ability or the learning of the gentlemen who preceded me, but I have their sincerity, and I plead with the commission to so arrange things that the young people will start their homes from scratch, and not with a handicap. If the commission could arrange that and that alone, the protracted sitting of the commission in Christchurch would be worth while.” When Mr Dell finished his address the commission adjourned until Mondav. when Mr W. R. Lascelles will make the final address on behalf of the City Council. Mr F. B. Stephens, counsel- to the commission, will be the last to make an address. and the commission is expected to finish the sitting on Tuesday.