Counties show disunity in attitude to united council

Press, 24 August 1977, Page 3

Counties show disunity in attitude to united council

There was little evidence; of unity among county rep-' resentatives who met in; Christchurch yesterday to I discuss their function in a i united council for the I Canterbury region. It was a special meeting] of Ward 11 of the New Zea-! land Counties’ Association, but from the outset it was plain that in general terms the rural counties were in favour of the proposed united council and the urban ones were not — in spite of warnings by the chairman (Mr Clutha Mackenzie) that division into two camps should be avoided. The one dissenting rural voice was that of Mr B. Erickson (Oxford), who said! it was not known how I powerful a united council) would become. ‘We want to] see it stop at planning and] civil defence — and we are] also concerned about the' costs,” he said. Mr T. J. Brocherie (Akaroa) said the region had to have an authority and the regional council would serve best. Representation for the rural counties would be better than with a regional council, and he hoped that the mandatory functions of

; planning and civil defence I ultimately would not be the only functions. i Mr D. B. Rich (Waimairi) said the Local Government I Commission had not disi cussed the proposed 19 reIgions with local authorities (and when tackled about it (had given the “curious” (reply that it would be discussed when the regions had been set up. “The regions are far too small,” Mr Rich said. “Nelson and Marlborough are separate regions and there is no way that they can both afford a regional planning authority. The country as a whole cannot get planning staff or afford all these planning authorities. “The Canterbury Regional Planning Authority has functioned better than anyone I dreamed it would when it (was established. It would be folly to change this,” he (said. | Mr Rich said there were I many anomalies in the proposed scheme. Paparua would lose one representative, and be left with one for a population of 27,000. Cheviot with a population of 1500 would have one member. Waimairi would lose a member and pay the same amount. Christchurch City would have the same repre-

slsentation and pay $21,000] less. Rangiora County would] ionly have a fifth of a mem-| )]ber. and pay SIBOO more.] tiHurunui would have one; -(member and pay $5200 more! -(than it would under the si present scheme. t: “The representation and ’{the cost is not acceptable. -(The Minister of Works, the 1 commission, and the Ombudsman have been told of > the lack of co-operation we - have had from the commis- ; sion,” Mr Rich said. s Mr Mackenzie said the i commission had worked wi- ; thin the act and the schemes i had to be “got out” by Sep- ; tember. “What size should - the various regions be?” he asked. 1 Mr Rich said he thought - there should be five regions in ; the South Island — two on]’ t the east coast, one on the] 5 West Coast, one in the north, jjand one in the south. The (cost of duplicating planning' ? authorities was so great it! ■ was better to have a larger i area. “Last year, the R.P.A. - cost $250,000,” he said. ’ Mr Mackenzie: In that case . we should look at the internal f costs of regional planning. Mr Rich: Regional planning i cannot be any cheaper — it is ; a delusion. r Mr T. M. Inch (Rangiora) • said planning was to do with

'people, not area and valua-j tion,” and the former is what (we now have with the R.P.A.” | Every local authority had a {right at present to be repre-j (sented by at least one mem-! (her. but the commission had; (changed that. Eight counties would not be represented! under the new scheme. He! thought the commission had; made a “tactical error.” Mr Mackenzie said it was better for the rural areas that area had been brought into the calculations. They would get the representation they wanted, but he thought the costs should be borne by the areas with high populations. Mr Inch said he wanted to have his cake and eat it. “What you are going to get is the same service and much the same representation for i two and three times the cost,” he said. ' Mr A. A. Macfarlanej l(Amuri) said his council was] lan unwilling partner to the R.P.A. but the commission I was administering the act. “We can bitch as much as we like but we can’t get around it. Our objection to the scheme would be to not join,” Mr Macfarlane said. Mr Brocherie said the united council idea was a good one, ‘.'but if we are goi ing to be united then we need i to be just that,” he said.