Lyttelton outside the city?

Press, 23 February 1989, Page 12

Lyttelton outside the city?

The Port of Lyttelton, for well over a century, has maintained its identity separate from that of the newer settlement of Christchurch. In spite of the rail and road tunnels, the Port Hills provide a physical and psychological barrier between the two communities, even though many people move from one to the other each day to work. Other residential suburbs round the harbour are equally selfconscious about not being part of the flat Christchurch City. These considerations loom large in the determination of people in Lyttelton Borough and Mt Herbert County that they should not be lumped into the enlarged Christchurch City under the Local Government Commission’s plans for reorganisation in Canterbury. Now Lyttelton can claim to have the support of other local authorities in the area, including the Christchurch City Council, for its desire to stay separate from the enlarged city. This must lead to a revival of the earlier plan for a Banks Peninsula district; Lyttelton can hardly expect to stand alone when the whole object of reorganisation is to create very much larger and more economic local authorities.

Lyttelton can expect support from most other parts of Banks Peninsula. There have been grumbles from places such as Akaroa that they have been included in a Selwyn District, running from the alps to Okains Bay, because it seemed they could be fitted in nowhere else. Lyttelton, the harbour suburbs, Akaroa, and the rural areas of the Peninsula might just — but only just — make up an adequate separate district.

The Lyttelton Borough Council — and for that matter the Christchurch City Council —

should still reconsider their attitudes, even assuming that the Commission is prepared to give a hearing to the latest showing of separatism. To separate the local government of Christchurch from that of its port is not necessarily to benefit either community. However much the Port Hills divide them, each is essential to the other’s economic wellbeing.

Lyttelton outside the city, even if it was part of a Banks Peninsula District, could expect only a tiny voice in the region’s concerns. However the measurement is made, Lyttelton is much closer in its interests to Christchurch than to Akaroa. Both towns look to Christchurch, even though they enjoy a sense of being different. It may be that Lyttelton and other parts of the Peninsula can produce convincing arguments for a separate authority. Given the support from Christchurch City and others they deserve a sympathetic hearing from the Commission. The final decision, however, will have to depend on economic realities. However strong local sentiments may be, the well-being of Lyttelton and other parts of the Peninsula will not be best served if these sentiments lead to creating a small, expensive, poor relation on the fringes of more prosperous and more populous districts to the north and west. If the system of wards within the new, enlarged authorities can be made to serve local interests, communities such as Lyttelton should still be able to enjoy adequate self-management along with the benefits of being part of much larger groupings. This desire for a departure from the plan, understandable as it is, demands caution.