Heathcote County Areas Petition To Join City

Press, Volume XCVII, Issue 28702, 27 September 1958, Page 11

Heathcote County Areas Petition To Join City

If an area of the Heathcote County, including Mount Pleasant and McCormacks Bay, were incorporated in Christchurch city as asked for in a petition to the Governor-General signed by 149 persons, it would make it “exceedingly difficult” for the remainder of the county to be operated in an economic way. This view was expressed by Cr. R. A. Young, acting-chairman of the Heathcote County Council, when a letter from the Local Government Commission informing the council of the petition, and seeking its reaction to it, was received at last evening’s meeting of the council. “The Heathcote county has a population of between 5000 and 6000 residents. It can at the moment be operated as an economic unit, but the withdrawal of the suggested portion of the county could well result in what was left being uneconomic,’’ Cr. Young said. “This county, in common with the Waimairi County Council, asked the Local Government Commission not to interfere lightly with county boundaries because of the unfortunate effects that would result.” The petition had been referred to the Christchurch City Council, but, although no formal advice had been received, it appeared from a newspaper report that the City Council felt that the Local Government Commission should consider the incorporation not only of Mount Pleasarit and McCormacks Bay but also the nearby Cannon estate, which was also within the county, Cr. Young said. “There were 149 signatures to the petition, but from a preliminary perusal of it the County Clerk came to the conclusion that fewer than 100 of them were signatures of persons qualified to sign,” said Cr. Young. “That was just over a quartet of the total ratepayers resident in the area, and it could well be then that the majority, not being signatories to the petition, want to remain in the county. “In addition, a number of those residents in the area, about 20 in all, have so far indicated verbally that although signatories to the petition, they have withdrawn their support to it. Water Supply “For some this county council has been concerned with the problem of water supply in the Mount Pleasant and adjoining areas,” said Cr. Young. "It had a number of schemes in mind but it

was found that the cost was prohibitive for such a limited area—it was beyond the means of people living there to pay the crist of in-

stallation, and the annual charges for water. “But with the advent of the Cannon estate subdivision the situation has changed. This is a

very large subdivision with about 340 building sections in a very desirable area. “With the completion of the final plans for this subdivision this council requested its consulting engineer, Mr H. G. Royds, to bring down a comprehensive water scheme, pumping water from new wells, f at Ferrymead in stages to reservoirs on Mount Pleasant. . , “Just prior to this evening s meeting a preliminary report has been received from Mr Royds in which he has indicated that it is practicable, and, from a supply point of view, economic, to put in this completely new scheme that will supply water not only to Mount Pleasant, but also to the whole of the Cannon estate, and at the same time improve the water .supply in Heathcote Valley, and possibly even as far as Horotane and Avoca Valleys. “If the water can be supplied at a cost to the council of about 5d a thousand gallons, then allowing for additional charges for pumping and reticulation at higher levels, water should be available in good supply at a reasonable price to those in the areas affected by this petition. “It is not the desire of this county council to obstruct these petitioners and it may well be that with the advent of the new water scheme they may not wish to proceed with their application,’’ Cr. Young said. The council’ decided that it would cyclostyle Mr Royds’s report and circulate it among resident? of Mount Pleasant and those concerned with the subdivision of the Cannon estate. “We could explain further that the council has no say in Drainage Board matters,” suggested Cr C. H. Jones. “What you mean by that is that persons on Mount Pleasant feel aggrieved that there is not a modern, efficient sewerage system there?” said Cr. Young. “It would make no difference if they were in the city—sewerage is the responsibility of the Drainage • Board.” A number of persons might have signed the petition before ! they had received their latest rate 1 demands, Cr. Young added. “They may have been agreeably surprised that the countywas able to manage on its existing rates without any increase.” 1 he said.