Home » The Reorganisation Process » Current applications

Alteration to the boundary between Horowhenua District and Palmerston North City

Overview:

Commission receives response to call for alternative applications relating to the boundary between Horowhenua District and Palmerston North City

At its meeting on 23 May the Commission received the single response to the call for alternative applications. You can read the response here:

The Commission intends meeting with the respondent and will then undertake research and analysis before identifying ‘reasonably practicable options” and its preferred option.

Invitation for alternative reorganisation applications in response to an application for a change to the boundary between Horowhenua District and Palmerston North City

On 4 April 2019 the Local Government Commission released a public notice inviting alternative applications in response to an application for a change to the boundary between Horowhenua District and Palmerston North City. You can read the public notice here: 

The information on this page is designed to assist those who may be interested submitting their own alternative reorganisation application or other proposal.

The call for alternative applications closed on Wednesday 15 May 2019.

Background

On 4 October 2018 the Commission received a local government reorganisation application from the “Tokopiki Boundary Change Group” for a change in the boundary between Horowhenua District and Palmerston North City. The effect of the proposal would be to transfer the township of Tokomaru and rural locality of Opiki and adjacent areas from the district into the city. The affected area that would become part of the city if the proposal were to proceed is shown in the map here:

On 29 November the Commission determined that the application met the necessary statutory tests and has agreed to assess the application.  You can read the Commission’s November decision here:

Original reorganisation application 

The original reorganisation application was lodged by a group called the “Tokopiki Boundary Change Group”.  The group considers the area that would be affected by the proposed boundary change would be better served by being included within the boundaries of Palmerston North City. You can read the original application here:

The Commission is now inviting alternative applications to this original application. The purpose of this process is to provide an opportunity for interested groups or individuals to put other ideas on the table before the Commission considers what it sees as the best solution.  At this stage the Commission has not formed any view on what the best outcome.

Next steps

Once the Commission has received alternative reorganisation applications, it will then identify what it sees as the “reasonably practicable options”.

These may include the original reorganisation application, or they may reflect alternatives proposed by other people, or be options that the Commission may identify for itself. By law, the reasonably practicable options must also include current local government arrangements i.e. no change. Options must meet certain legislative criteria before they can be considered “reasonably practicable”.

The Commission will then identify its “preferred option”. If the Commission’s preferred option is not the “no change” option, it would then prepare a draft reorganisation proposal which would be subject to community consultation.
If the Commission were to decide on the “no change” option in relation to reorganisation it would end its process there.

Making an alternative application

What is an alternative application?

An “alternative application” is simply a proposal for some other change to local government in the affected area that falls within the broad definition of “local government reorganisation” contained in section 24 of the Local Government Act. This may include the:

  • union of district or regions
  • constitution of a new district or region, including the constitution of a new local authority for that new district or region
  • abolition of a district or region, including the dissolution or abolition of the local authority for that district or region
  • alteration of the boundaries of any district or region
  • transfer of a statutory obligation from one local authority to another
  • assumption by a territorial authority of the powers of a regional council.

You can read section 24 of the Local Government Act here: Local Government Act 2002 S.24

Who can make an alternative application?

Any individual or group may lodge an alternative application – including individual members of the public, community groups, businesses and organisations.

What does an alternative application need to contain?

Alternative applications must include:

  • the name and address of the applicant
  • a description of the type of local government change or changes proposed, including (but not limited to):
    • which of the matters listed in section 24 of the Local Government Act 2002 is being sought
    • a map or other description to identify the affected area
  • a detailed explanation of what the changes are seeking to achieve and how the changes would be achieved by the approach proposed
  • a description of the potential improvements that would result from the changes and how they would promote good local government.

In some cases, alternative applications will be required to include further information, e.g. if the alternative proposes change over a larger area than the original application it must include evidence of some level of community support in the additional area. An alternative application may also include other information the applicant thinks might be relevant to their application.

The above requirements for alternative applications are set out in clause 5 of Schedule 3 and section 24 of the Local Government Act 2002. You can read clause 5 of Schedule 3 of the Local Government Act 2002 here: Local Government Act 2002 S.5

What happens next?

Once the Commission has received alternative reorganisation applications, it will then identify what it sees as the “reasonably practicable options”.

These may include the original reorganisation application, or they may reflect alternatives proposed by other people, or be options that the Commission may identify for itself. By law, the reasonably practicable options must also include current local government arrangements i.e. no change. Options must meet certain legislative criteria before they can be considered “reasonably practicable”.  To be a “reasonably practicable option”, the Commission must be satisfied that:

  • a new or changed council will have the resources to carry out its responsibilities effectively
  • a new or changed district or region will be appropriate for the efficient performance of the local authority’s responsibilities
  • a new or changed district or region will contain distinct communities of interest
  • flooding and water management issues will be able to be effectively dealt with (if the option includes the regional council’s role).

The Commission will then identify its “preferred option”. In addition to meeting requirements for “reasonably practicable options”, the Commission must take into account the following further matters:

  • which option will best promote “good local government” which includes:
    • enabling democratic local decision-making
    • providing good quality infrastructure, services and regulatory performance
  • which option will facilitate improved economic performance which may include:
    • efficiencies and cost savings
    • productivity improvements
    • simplified planning processes

If the Commission’s preferred option is not the “no change” option, it would then prepare a draft reorganisation proposal.  There would then be a period of community consultation  including a submissions process. The Commission would then consider whether to proceed to issue a final reorganisation proposal.  If the Commission were to decide on the “no change” option in relation to reorganisation it would end its process there.