Boundary change decision deferred

Press, 21 November 1987, Page 9

Boundary change decision deferred

By

KAY FORRESTER

The Local Government Commission has put off any decision on boundary changes between Heathcote County and Christchurch City until further progress is made on the local body reform of Christchurch.

The three boundary proposals on which it heard views from Christchurch residents last month have been deferred witbout decisions.

That, asserts Mr Roy Hughes, who represents several of the initiators of a transfer of a big chunk of Christchurch City to the neighbouring county, shows conclusively that the residents have a case. He believes the commission could not fault the arguments of 595 City residents, who signed petitions seeking a switch to Heathcote, that they would be better off in the county.

"The commission says in its conclusions that if

the switch went ahead the effect on the City Council of the loss of rates revenue from the area could be significant.

“That seems to have been the only consideration — that a transfer would lose the City money.” Mr Hughes said the commission’s comment seemed to put the interests of the council before those of the people. Although the residents were no closer to becoming Heathcote residents, they had a moral victory, Mr Hughes believes. "It is quite a triumph for us. Our case was such that the commission could not reject it.” The commission’s deci-

sion, made on the recommendation of the committee of three commissioners who heard the residents after being instructed by the High Court to do so, defers the three boundary proposals until objections to a provisional reorganisation scheme are decided. The committee offered three options — to pursue the proposals to the next stage and appoint a conciliator, to not proceed; or to defer consideration. The committee said there was no evidence to suggest that the proposal for the transfer of the Mt Pleasant to Sumner area to the county had the support of most of its 9000 residents. The Port Hills

could be as much a part of the City as the county in geographic and practical terms.

The proposals conformed to planning principles.

Although both Heathcote and the City agree that one property, No. 7 Glenelg Spur, bisected by the boundary line, should be entirely in the county, the committee did not see any ground for urgency in securing that minor boundary change.

It observed that the main reasons for the transfer of the Mt Pleasant to Sumner area was dissatisfaction over rates. That was not sufficient justification alone for proceeding with the proposal.