City seeks merger: Heathcote does not

Press, 12 October 1979, Page 4

City seeks merger: Heathcote does not

Amalgamation was “still a fairly live issue" in Heathcote County, and the Christchurch City Council was willing to help in merger discussions, said the Mayor of Christchurch (Mr H. G. Hay) yesterday.

But the Heathcote County Council did not want toil merge with Christchurch t City, said the County Chair- t man (Mr J. M. McKenzie) i last evening i Mr Hay thought the coun- i ty, partly a dormitory sub- 1 urb, should Join the city in- ]' stead of looking towards; merging with the rural Mounts Herbert County. The city was just waiting ii to be asked to join discus-■ I sions. A similar offer was de-1' dined earlier this year Mr Hay said a telephone;' call from a county ratepayer i 1 had revived his thoughts on!' the matter. ; < Recent Heathcote council ji meeting discussions, and con- i cem expressed by some'< county residents about the j basis for council representation, had prompted him to suggest meetings to "thoroughly investigate the merits of Heathcote’s joining forces with the city,” Mr Hay said. There was nothing to be lost in talking about it, and seeing where services might be improved, economies I made, and an equitable rep-1 resentation worked out. i “Inevitably, this would ’ have to include a close ex-’

lamination of the whole ques-i tion on the effects on rates i to Heathcote ratepayers if • they were to join the city, i necessarily a fairly complex < issue, since Hearhcte County rates on capital values while the city rates on land lvalues." Mr Hay said. It was clear that county icouncillors thought some rationalisation of local govem;ment was needed; otherwise (they would not be negotiating I with Mount Herbert County. Mr Hay said it would be ;"a tragedy” for the long: (term development of metrojpolitan Christchurch tf the [county’s study did not include some discussions with I the Christchurch City CounIcil. He said that many Heathcote residents “must surely have a closer community of interest” with the city than with rural areas of Banks Peninsula. “Our door is always open for talks and negotiations.” Mr Hay said. “We have only to be asked.” I Asked to respond to Mr ! Hay’s comments, Mr McKenI zie said the council had re-: ’jected that course in a 5-3] ’vote in April,

if Mr Hay’s otter rested; on alleged under-representa- \ tion of Cashmere residents’ on the Heathcote County] Council, he would like to | know how Mr Hay might increase that representation on the City Council. The ratio of councillor-to-electors in the Heathcote County was- 1:1200, Mr McKenzie said. In the city it was 1:9000 “If Cashmere ratepayers want amalgamation with the city, I would be very surprised. Or they are not in full possession of the facts,” Mr McKenzie said. He said that Mr Hay had switched stances by originally favouring the 1972 Local Government Commission report which proposed a single city district comprising Heathcote, Mount Herbert. Lyttelton, and the city; and then opposing earlier . this year the amalgamation of Mount Herbert and Heathcote. The Heathcote County Council would not consider amalgamation with the city until the negotiations with i Mount Herbert were con- < eluded, Mr McKenzie said. ’