DRAFT BOUNDARY REORGANISATION SCHEME FOR MANAWATU DISTRICT
AND PALMERSTON NORTH CITY FOR THE LONGBURN, KAIRANGA,
BUNNYTHORPE AND ASHHURST AREAS
DECISION OF JOINT BOUNDARY COMMITTEE OF MANAWATU DISTRICT
COUNCIL AND PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL
Date of Decision: 2 November 2011
The COMMITTEE RESOLVED that, pursuant to Clause 18 of Schedule 3 of the Local
Government Act 2002, the Draft Boundary Reorganisation Scheme for Manawatu District
and Palmerston North City for the Longburn, Kairanga, Bunnythorpe and Ashhurst areas,
dated July 2011, be adopted in the form set out in Appendix One attached to this decision
with the amendments that have been made to the Draft Reorganisation Scheme subsequent
to submissions being contained in Appendix Two attached to this decision.
The Joint Boundary Committee was established by Manawatu District Council and
Palmerston North City Council (collectively referred to in this decision as “the two Councils”
or “both Councils”) in June 2011 for the purpose of processing the proposal for a boundary
alteration served on Palmerston North City Council by Manawatu District Council. The
processing duties of the Committee included the preparation of a Draft Boundary
Reorganisation Scheme, notifying that scheme to the public and inviting submissions, and
then making a decision on the scheme after considering the submissions received. The
Committee was constituted and operated in accordance with the procedures set out in
Schedule 3 of the Local Government Act 2002. The Manawatu District Council appointees
to the Committee were Councillors Matt Bell, Barbara Cameron and Tony Jensen and the
Palmerston North City Council appointees were Councillors Jim Jefferies, Annette Nixon and
Tangi Utikere.
The Committee arrived at its decision after fully examining all the evidence, which included
212 written submissions, together with oral statements from 64 submitters who attended or
were represented at a hearing of the Committee held at the Manawatu District Council
offices in Feilding from Tuesday 11 October to Friday 14 October 2011. After hearing the
submissions, the Committee’s options were to adopt the Draft Reorganisation Scheme, or to
adopt the scheme with amendments taking account of recommendations, submissions and
other information received by the Committee, or to decide that the scheme should not
proceed.
The Committee expressly confirms that it has accepted and based its decision on the
relevant statutory criteria, as more particularly set out in Clauses 3 to 5 of Schedule 3 to the
Local Government Act 2002. In doing so, particular attention was given to the requirement
that a Reorganisation Scheme should promote good local government of the districts
concerned, ensuring that each local authority affected by the proposal would have the
necessary resources to enable it to carry out its responsibilities if the scheme was
implemented, and contain within its district a sufficiently distinct community or communities
of interest.
The Committee noted that the Draft Reorganisation Scheme was supported by Manawatu
District Council and Palmerston North City Council, apart from suggestions made by both
Councils for minor amendments. While there was some support for the draft scheme from
other submitters, the Committee noted that the majority of submitters were opposed to the
scheme.
The rationale for the scheme, as stated in the Explanatory Notes attached to the draft
scheme as Attachment C, was that the two Councils were experiencing growth pressures on
the boundary between the two authorities. Such pressure was coming largely from industrial
growth around the boundary, raising issues about land use and infrastructural planning. If
growth pressures were not addressed in a coordinated consistent way, then it was possible
that the greater Manawatu area might miss out on economic and social opportunities that
might otherwise arise from this growth. In particular:
There was the prospect that both Councils were continuing to expend significant
resources in dealing with proposals for private development near the boundary. In
this regard, the submission from Palmerston North City Council pointed out that over
the last five years, there have been three private plan change requests lodged with
Manawatu District Council to rezone land for a mix of commercial and industrial
activity for land adjoining but lying outside the city boundary. In addition, there had
also been a number of informal approaches for industrial development in the north
east part of the City near the boundary area.
The City Council submission also underlined the importance of the strategic roading
network as detailed in the Palmerston North - Manawatu Joint Strategic Transport
Study and the Regional Land Transport Strategy. The Joint Study was
commissioned by the two Councils, New Zealand Transport Agency and Horizons
Regional Council. The City Council expressed a concern in its submission that it had
been unable to advance the planning, implementation and funding of road
improvements near the city as it had no control over the roads. The District Council
agreed in its submission, adding that it was inequitable that the District Council
should be required to fund infrastructure work that was primarily for the benefit of the
City.
A realignment of the boundary would bring within Palmerston North areas which
already share a significant community of interest with Palmerston North City. Both
Councils mentioned in their submissions that more than half of the residents living in
the area affected by the scheme worked in Palmerston North (54% reported in the
2006 Census), while 95% saw the City as their principal shopping destination
(Marketview retail expenditure, June 2010).
Page | 2
The submissions opposing the Draft Reorganisation Scheme did so for a variety of reasons.
Some submitters believed that the City and District Councils should amalgamate. This is in
line with the preferred option expressed in the
Morrison Low Report. This report was
commissioned by the two Councils to make recommendations to the Councils about whether
the Councils should amalgamate, alter their common boundary, or place a greater emphasis
on cross boundary services. Otherwise, submitters opposing the Draft Reorganisation
Scheme commonly did so because:
The City Council had not demonstrated a sufficient need to expand its boundaries,
particularly for future residential development. Several submitters pointed out that
the City presently included sufficient land to accommodate future residential
development within the existing City boundary for the next 30 to 50 years.
Much of the area included in the Draft Reorganisation Scheme was unsuitable for
future urban or industrial development because the land concerned was prone to
flooding, particularly in parts of Areas A and B, and in Area C to the south-west of
Bunnythorpe.
If urban or industrial development was to take place on some of the land proposed to
be included in the City, this would involve the use of land and soils that were
otherwise highly productive for agriculture purposes.
The financial viability of Manawatu District Council would be threatened because the
Council would be “giving away” a significant proportion of its assets. Several
submitters commented that businesses did not grow by parting with significant
assets.
The proposal would mean the splitting of communities, particularly in the Kairanga
locality where the use of the Kairanga-Bunnythorpe Road as the boundary would
divide residents between the City and District.
The City Council had little understanding of rural matters and villages, having
historically focussed on matters associated with urban development.
After considering all the submissions, the Committee deemed it appropriate to partially
reduce the area of land proposed to be included in the City. In particular:
In Area A at Longburn, it was decided that the land west of the North Island Main
Trunk Railway and Reserve Road be excluded from the scheme. This land was
unlikely to be of strategic benefit to the City in the foreseeable future. The Committee
believed that the railway line made a natural boundary for a good part of this area,
with future industrial and commercial development likely to take place on the eastern
side of the railway line.
Page | 3
In Area C, the Committee accepted that there was little likelihood of urban
development taking place to the north and east of Bunnythorpe. Further, it is likely
that there would be little impact on the strategic roading network if that part of Area C
was excluded from the scheme. The Committee considered that Bunnythorpe town
and the area to the west and south of the township should be included in the City,
because the likely future course of urban development in Palmerston North would be
in a northerly direction from the existing City towards the Bunnythorpe area.
In the Ashhurst area, Areas F and G have been excluded from the scheme. Area F
is unlikely to be of strategic benefit to the City in the foreseeable future. The small
Area G, proposed to be transferred from City to District, was deleted because it was
linked to Area F. Under the scheme as adopted by the Committee, the Saddle Road
Bridge would continue to lie partly in the City and partly in the District.
With regard to the Kairanga community, the Committee considers that this community has
not developed into a township as have Linton, Bunnythorpe and Ashhurst, and that it is
geographically located much closer to the commercial centre of Palmerston North than to the
commercial centre of Feilding. The community, therefore, already has a close connection
with Palmerston North.
The Committee noted that the City Council already had an understanding of “rural matters”,
evidenced by the fact that 81.5% of the geographical area of the City is rural. The Council
has also passed a resolution to provide a high level of protection for the future use of high
class soils. A change in local authority boundaries, in itself, also has no impact on the
ultimate use of the land. This is regulated by District Plan provisions made in consultation
with the community.
With regard to representation, the Committee has agreed with the proposals set out in the
draft scheme, but acknowledges that these will be reviewed by both Councils in the near
future. Both Councils are required to address representation issues and publically announce
their proposals by 31 August 2012 and the next elections for both Councils will be carried out
on the basis of the outcome of the representation reviews. There appears to be little value in
the Committee making major alterations to representation arrangements that would be in
place for little more than a year before the next local authority elections. In the meantime,
existing ward boundaries in Palmerston North City will be maintained except that those
areas becoming part of the City will be added to the appropriate adjacent wards.
Apart from reducing the size of the geographic area covered by the Draft Reorganisation
Scheme, the Committee has modified the scheme to accommodate suggestions made by
Manawatu District Council with regard to the transitionary payment and building consents
proposals. The alteration to the transitionary payment will provide for greater certainty and
will eliminate the need for reviews, whilst changes to building consent provisions
acknowledge that these services have been undertaken by the City Council on behalf of the
District Council since 2007.
Page | 4
In summary, the Committee accepts that the boundary alteration proposals should proceed,
but on a modified basis, as reflected in the amendments that have been made to the Draft
Reorganisation Scheme.
Dated this 2nd day of November 2011
Councillor Matt Bell
Chairperson
Page | 5
