|
Page
1 ~ Page 2 of 4 ~ Page 3
 
April 1999 C H R I S T C H
U R C H C I T Y C O U N C I L · Y O U R P E O P L E · Y O U R
C I T Y
|
ISSUE ONE - DO CHRISTCHURCH AND BANKS PENINSULA SHARE A COMMON IDENTITY?
 The Local Government Commission believes that the
area of the current Banks Peninsula and Christchurch share a community of interest.
Residents will have to make up their own minds as to whether there is a strong common
identity between the areas or not. However, there are a number of factors to be taken
account of, some of which are set out below. You might want to consider the following
points:
- There are strong ties between Christchurch and Lyttelton. Lyttelton is the major
provincial port and was settled before Christchurch.
- Many residents of Christchurch City make use of facilities and features in Banks
Peninsula. These include parks, roads and beaches, especially for recreation and leisure
activities. These facilities, and other assets in Banks Peninsula are currently used by
Christchurch residents without direct financial contribution.
- 25% of ratepayers in Banks Peninsula are from Christchurch.
- 56% of the Lyttelton area workforce are employed in Christchurch; overall 38% of the
Banks Peninsula workforce work in Christchurch City.
- Most of the people who work in Lyttelton live in Christchurch rather than in Lyttelton.
- Christchurch is an urban Council while Banks Peninsula District has a largely rural
character.
- Christchurch is the second largest local authority in New Zealand, while Banks Peninsula
is one of the smaller ones.
- Christchurch has strong ties with Lyttelton, but interaction with Akaroa and the more
distant settlements on the Peninsula is less frequent.
- The economies of both areas are different.
|
ISSUE TWO -
SERVICES AND RATES
An extensive
study has been jointly undertaken by the Banks Peninsula District and Christchurch City
Councils. One of the purposes of this study was to gain a picture of the extent to which
service standards on the Peninsula would rise as the result of an amalgamation.
Since 1989 the Christchurch City Council has generally had a policy of providing the same
level of services throughout its area. There are some minor differences within
Christchurch with regard to the relatively small rural area in the city, but certainly
within the built-up area, the approach is to provide a uniform standard of service. A
single funding policy is also applied across the city so that services are not only
provided to a common standard city-wide but are also paid for by a single system of user
charges and property rates.
The position on Banks Peninsula is quite different. Service standards are generally lower
than in Christchurch, they also differ significantly from one community to another and
there are variations in the funding policy by which services are paid for. It is
recognised that many Peninsula residents do not want urban standard services such as kerbs
and channels and footpaths.
However there are a number of areas in which it would seem likely that a new, amalgamated,
City Council |
would consider
that in the interests of equity, services for Peninsula residents would need to be
improved.
In round terms it was considered that the cost of inevitable service standard increases on
the Peninsula would be about $720,000 per annum in terms of operational expenditure plus
$1.15 million per annum of capital expenditure. There would also be savings as a result of
an amalgamation. There would be efficiencies in adding the administration of Banks
Peninsula services on to the structures already established in Christchurch City, enabling
overhead costs to be reduced. These efficiencies are estimated at about $560,000 per
annum.
Overall, therefore, the cost of amalgamation is about $1.3 million per annum. In return
for this the standard of services provided on the Peninsula (both for residents and also
for visitors, including those from Christchurch) would be worth $1.8 million per annum
more.
The cost of services is only part of the picture when it comes to calculating rates. All
councils are required to prepare a funding policy which determines how their various
services are to be paid for, including the balance between user charges and rates funding
and the extent to which different ratepayer groups such as residential, |
commercial and
rural should be required to pay for the various services. There has been a tradition
within Christchurch of paying for services uniformly across the City. Banks Peninsula has
traditionally had a more complex pattern of paying for services on a more local basis,
although it has recently moved to a more uniform basis of rating.
It would be up to a new Council to determine its policy for rates and user charges. Some
believe the most likely outcome would see rates for residential and commercial properties
on Banks Peninsula little changed by amalgamation, but there might be a significant
reduction in the rates paid by rural property owners on the Peninsula.
Assuming rates were reduced for rural properties on the Peninsula the overall impact on
City ratepayers would be relatively small because the Peninsula has 3,000 rural properties
for rating purposes while the City has 122,000 rateable properties altogether.
Taking account of the increase in service standards and some reduction in rates for
rural properties on the Peninsula, the increase in rates for a typical home in
Christchurch would be about 2 per cent. That is, $15 per year for a house valued at
$145,000, which currently pays $788 per annum in City Council rates. |
Picturesque Akaroa is a popular weekend retreat for Christchurch people |
Our Current Councils
The current Christchurch City Council and Banks Peninsula District Councils were formed in
1989 following the reorganisation of local government by the Government.
Christchurch was formed from parts of Paparua and all of the Councils that covered
Waimairi, Heathcote, Riccarton and Christchurch. Banks Peninsula District Council was
formed when Lyttelton, Mt Herbert, Wairewa and Akaroa were merged. |
Page 1
~ Page 2 of 4 ~ Page 3 |
|
