One-city concept endorsed; final decision by May

Press, 20 February 1986, Page 1

One-city concept endorsed; final decision by May

By

KAY FORRESTER

Christchurch should be one city, incorporating Heathcote, Riccarton, Waimairi, the present Christchurch City, and possibly part of Paparua, according to the Local Government Commission.

Charged with the restructuring of local government within Christchurch, the commission has decided that one metropolitan council should be responsible for its administration.

Although tne commission’s chairman, Mr Brian Elwood, did not bring a formal proposal to the city’s councils last evening, he outlined what the commission’s proposal would be.

That proposal will be implemented if the councils cannot come up with their own method of creating a single enlarged city by the commission’s meeting in May. The proposal is for a new metropolitan council to be formed from the amalgamation of Christchurch City, Riccarton Borough, Waimairi District, and Heathcote County.

The new council would have 24 members and a Mayor, who would be elected direct.

The city would be divided into 12 wards, each to be represented by two councillors. A common rating system would be introduced, with a common revaluation date so that properties of equal value should pay a similar rate.

The services would be decentralised and focused on community centres

The new council would administer a community of about 250,000 people. . The future of Paparua County is very much in question. Mr Elwood acknowledged the view — and certainly that held by

Paparua councillors — that the urban-rural unit should stay intact. But the county’s future “will be affected by its rural-urban population mix and its proximity to metropolitan Christchurch and the largely rural areas of Eyre, Malvern and Ellesmere,” he said. That could mean a rural-urban split for the county, with the urban area joining the enlarged city and the rural area uniting with neighbouring counties. But for the meantime Paparua is left alone, until the whole Canterbury review is completed. For Heathcote, Riccarton, Waimairi, and Christchurch City, the message is clear — decide by May how the four councils will amalgamate or the commission will make the decision. Mr Elwood said the commission would consider different perimeters to the new city area — such as extending it to include all the Christchurch Drainage Board territory — if that was an agreed solution from local councils. Mr Elwood said the commission wanted the formalities completed by May, 1987, and interim arrangements to be in place between then and October, 1989, when the first elections under the new system would be held. Voters would then be electing councillors to a new council to run a city with a new name, he said. “The new council will not be the Christchurch City Council,” he said. He suggested the Metropoli-

tan Christchurch City Council as a name. Mr Elwood said he had carefully considered the submissions for a two-city Christchurch and also three cities, but the argument that Christchurch was one physical and geographic unit was too strong. The only way a two-city approach could have been used was to create a formal metropolitan committee to liaise between the two councils. The same communications problems that existed now would continue.

Any separation of the community led to artificial boundaries. The two-city approach and its liaison committee was expensive and confusing when a clear and logical alternative, a single large city, was available.

While it acknowledged the desire for the status quo expressed by several councils, and understood the reluctance to change, the commission had to consider the future and "efficiency, effectiveness, and common sense.”

Those arguing for the status quo had suggested options for change but had stopped short of supporting fundamental change, Mr Elwood said.

The commission was obliged to take the wider view. The solution the commission has. adopted is essentially that put up’ by the Christchurch City Council. That proposal has been consistently opposed by Christchurch’s other councils, who see it as a takeover by the City Council.

That feeling, as much as anything, led to the councils’ failing to agree to a local solution for restructuring and handing the problem back to the commission.

Mr Elwood said again last evening he would have preferred a local solution. The commission was left with the option of leaving well alone or bringing the issues to a head by initiating its own solution. This it had done. It had decided to ask 'the four councils to consider a specific solution. By not bringing down the one-city plan as a formal proposal yet, it was, giving councils some flexibility on the details and agreed modifications. Mr Elwood said he hoped a consensus solution for one city would come back from the councils to the Commission for approval by its May meeting. If that solution was forthcoming, the commission would - endorse it in May; if not, the commission would initiate its own plan for the one city.

If the commission had to do that it would appreciate a survey of residents under the Local Government Act to measure public opposition to its plan. Mr Elwood promised the commission would take into account that survey result. Fifteen per cent of the ratepayers in any of the four areas can demand a poll.

Fifty per cent of the total ratepayers must vote against the solution for it to be dropped.