Ratepayers lose case over refuse station

Press, 26 February 1986, Page 9

Ratepayers lose case over refuse station

The validity of the Christchurch Metropolitan Refuse Committee and decisions relating to the Styx Mill Road Transfer Station were confirmed in the High Court yesterday. Three ratepayers in the Waimairi District had challenged the agreement made by their council on October 11, 1978, under which the committee had been constituted.

The plaintiffs claimed that the committee was acting without proper authority, and that decisions concerning the Styx Mill Road Transfer Station were invalid.

The three plaintiffs were Frank Chisholm, of 10 Auburn Avenue; Desmond King, of 69 Veitch Road; and Patricia Beattie, of 15 Cunliffe Road. They were represented by Mr C. B. Atkinson, Q.C.

The defendants in the case were the committee itself as first defendant, and five local councils which had appointed the committee, as second defendant. . These were the Christchurch City, Waimairi District, Heathcote County, Riccarton Borough, and Paparua County councils. Counsel for the defendants were Messrs J. G. Fogarty and D. M. Palmer.

The plaintiffs had argued in hearings in November that their application for a judicial review raised an important point relating to local government It involved the extent to which an organ of local government might set up another organ of local government to discharge its own functions.

The plaintiffs had said the refuse disposal committee was not acting on behalf of the councils which had appointed it but as a separate entity making decisions that were complied with by the councils. The actions of the committee, particularly the decision to erect the third transfer station, call tenders and make contracts, were invalid under the Local Government Act, they said. They had sought to quash the decision approving the building of the third transfer station in Styx Mill Road, but apart from that, the only relief sought was declaratory.

In a reserved decision given yesterday, Mr Justice Williamson said the only real dispute related to the interpretation of the facts. The plaintiffs said the facts showed that

the committee was acting as an independent local authority, but the defendants said that the policies were decided by councils and the committee merely implemented those policies as a joint committee of the councils. The committee had partly to assume the character of a single unit to operate in a reasonably convenient manner, “but its method of consultation, minutes and arrangements for contracts is certainly not that on an independent body,” said his Honour.

“In my view the evidence establishes that it is operating in a manner subsidiary to the combined councils but because of its joint nature it is not totally subservient to any one particular council.” He said that cuncils were entitled to delegate their powers and duties for refuse disposal to the joint committee under sections 104 and 105 of the Local Government Act.

His Honour said the acquisition of the site at Styx Mill Road was a valid exercise of power by the councils and that the committee itself had not acquired ownership of any property.

He also found that construction contracts for the Styx Mill site and the landfill site were valid, because they were between the contractors and the Christchurch City Council. The committee’s actions in sorting and approving tenders did not make it a party to the actual contract.

His Honour said there was little doubt that the plaintiffs were correct in emphasising the desirability of councils and local bodies being accountable to their ratepayers and acting within their powers.

“In my opinion the second defendants have acted within their statutory authority. “I hold that the first defendant is validly constituted under section 105 of the Local Government Act, 1974, and that its actions and those of the second defendant in relation to the site, construction and operation of the Styx Mill Road Transfer Station are not invalid.”

A failure to reconstitute the committee after each triennal election was an irregularity, but not one which justified relief, his Honour said.