Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

Paparua support for four-county union

Support in principle for the proposed amalgamation of the Heathcote, Paparua, Akaroa, and Mount Herbert counties was confirmed at a meeting of the Paparua County Council last evening.

The decision was reached on a recommendation from a special meeting of county and county borough councillors and members of the Halswell County Town Committee, to discuss the proposal. The sponsor of the pro-j posal, the Heathcote County Council, has put it up as an I alternative to the Local ■ Government Commission’s ( scheme. The County Cleric (Mr A. Kelly) said the four counties, if merged, would have an area of 417 square miles, a| population of 37,080, and a; valuation of s22om. He suggested the formation of a Peninsula rural dis- 1

t trict council to attend to I appropriate questions, and : said Heathcote County could ibe reconstituted as a county (borough, with its own council. MAY BE ACCEPTABLE The chairman (Mr D. H. (Warren) was reported as saying at the joint meeting that : the view had been expressed I that a voluntary scheme, | such as that proposed, might I well be acceptable to the ' commission in place of its ’ single-city scheme, which might produce no reorganisation whatsoever. “The suggestion has been made in some quarters that legislation may untimately compel compliance with the commission’s scheme,” Mr Warren said.

port for the present move, as both Heathcote and Mount Herbert have made it clear that they would much prefer the Paparua system of urban and rural district administration in which local contact and control is maintained, instead of more remote representation and administration as part of the city.” Mr Warren said that the council was on record as being opposed to the framentation of Paparua County, as proposed by the commission, and had told the commission that the Paparua administrative system could readily be extended to include the Peninsula counties and, perhaps, Ellesmere County. The report said that those present had agreed that the Peninsula counties would gain from the merger, but there would be no great advantage in it for Paparua except that from the national point of view, there would be fewer smaller counties and a substantial strengthening of local government.

“This probably is a factor that may be influencing sup-

“LEAD TO OTHERS” Cr T. B. Whelan said that the proposal would give a lead to other small councils. "Hie borough of Riccarton must eventually go somewhere. Cr H. W. Bennett said Paparua could inherit problems from the smaller counties, but the proposal was desirable to strengthen local government. Cr A. Y. Shuker said that Paparua should lead the way in forming a stronger unit. Paparua, a strong country, could support the weaker ones. He added that the physical needs of the three Peninsula counties were far greater than those of Paparua.

WAIREWA COUNTY Cr J. Y. Pethig said that it now appeared that the Wairewa County Council was not in favour of further discussion on the Heathcote scheme, and was looking towards amalgamation with Ellesmere County. On Cr Shuker’s motion, seconded by Cr Bennett, the council gave its support to the scheme in principle. It was agreed that it would be preferable if Wairewa County could join the group. Cr L. P. Manion said he was not in favour of the decision. He felt the council should await the commission’s final scheme.

This article text was automatically generated and may include errors. View the full page to see article in its original form.
Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/CHP19721107.2.137

Bibliographic details

Press, Volume CXII, Issue 33067, 7 November 1972, Page 20

Word Count
559

Paparua support for four-county union Press, Volume CXII, Issue 33067, 7 November 1972, Page 20

Paparua support for four-county union Press, Volume CXII, Issue 33067, 7 November 1972, Page 20