Rolleston plan ’unfair to city ratepayers’

Press, Volume CXIV, Issue 33514, 20 April 1974, Page 16

Rolleston plan ’unfair to city ratepayers’

I he Christchurch Citizens’ Association opposed the proposed njew city at Rolleston because it thought it would be against the best interests of metropolitan Christchurch and particularly Christchurch City Council ratepayers, Cr H. G. Hay, the leader of the Citizens’ councillors said last evening.

“We are, therefore, alramed that the Mayor (Mr N. G. Pickering) in a national television programme should speak strongly in favou rof the proposal ,and imply that the City Council also supports it,” he said.

The subject had not been mentioned at a council meeting, and the council had not formed any policy, he said.

Citizens’ Association councillors thought that priority should be given to using land for housing within the existing metropolitan area, and redevelopment of some of the older housing areas closer to the city’s centre. The proposed population of 50,000 to 80,000 for Rolleston could be accommodated within the present land occupied by Christchurch, and possibly . some adjustment to the urban fence should be considered in the next few years, instead of the establishment of what would virtually be a suburb and add to the city sprawl. LAND FOR HOUSING Some of the sllm proposed for land purchase at Rolleston by the Government could be made available to assist Christchurch urban redevelopment, Cr Hay said. There was land near Queen Elizabeth II Park and also near the Ferrymead Tavern capable of being converted into housing areas with appropriate facilities. A city developed at

Rolleston would not contribute to such .facilities as the Canterbury Public Library, the Town Hall, Botanic Gardens, and swimming pools, he said. CHRISTCHURCH FACILITIES Rolleston would be a separate borough with its own rates; but many of its residents would work in Christchurch, use the city’s public transport and roads, and no doubt some of the facilities financed by the city ratepayers.

“Surely this is not good planning and is contrary to sound economics,” Cr Hay said. “Christchurch is not yet too large with 270,000 people, and I think it could be made a much more attractive place for a population of another 100,000 with suitable public facilities. This would be better than the development of a thirdrate, unattractive suburb six miles away on a desolate, flat site.”

He was all for regional development in the South Island, Cr Hay said, but this should be thought of in terms of building on what existed in Christchurch ot smaller centres such as Rangiora, Ashburton, and Timaru.