It is worth noting that residents over Fitzgerald Avenue to the east also reported a strong relationship to the inner city. It can be concluded from this that the boundaries of suburbs and communities in this part of Christchurch are not precise and can be subject to change or influences from a number of directions. In light of this, the Commission decides that the boundaries in this area should remain as provided for in the Council’s final proposal. Addington, Sydenham and Waltham Several appellants and objectors sought either different boundaries in these areas or a different configuration of wards. In general terms what was sought was: Addington having its own ward keeping Addington in one ward, not split between the Central Ward and Spreydon-Cashmere Ward, with the eastern boundary being at Antigua Street Addington, Sydenham and Waltham in one ward not split between several wards including all of Sydenham in one ward Central, Spreydon or Cashmere, but – not Heathcote including Waltham in the Spreydon-Cashmere Ward, not the Heathcote Ward. The Commission has considered these suggestions carefully. As far as an Addington Ward is concerned, Addington does not have sufficient population (at approximately 6,700) to have its own ward on a 16-member council. The issue the other suggested changes present are that they are difficult to accommodate while still complying with the requirement in section 19V(2) that the population to member ratio for each ward fall within a +/-10% range. The alternative groupings suggested would either not meet this requirement or would require a large number of changes affecting adjacent wards. The Commission could apply the grounds in section 19V(3) that permit non-compliance to avoid splitting communities of interest or grouping together communities of interest with few commonalities of interest. However it does not consider the circumstances warrant this. Within a large urban area the boundaries of communities are not always as well defined as they might be in areas where topography clearly defines communities of interest. The Commission therefore decides not to make the changes suggested by appellants and objectors in this area.
It is worth noting that residents over Fitzgerald Avenue to the east also reported a strong relationship to the inner city. It can be concluded from this that the boundaries of suburbs and communities in this part of Christchurch are not precise and can be subject to change or influences from a number of directions. In light of this, the Commission decides that the boundaries in this area should remain as provided for in the Council’s final proposal. Addington, Sydenham and Waltham Several appellants and objectors sought either different boundaries in these areas or a different configuration of wards. In general terms what was sought was: Addington having its own ward keeping Addington in one ward, not split between the Central Ward and Spreydon-Cashmere Ward, with the eastern boundary being at Antigua Street Addington, Sydenham and Waltham in one ward not split between several wards including all of Sydenham in one ward – Central, Spreydon or Cashmere, but not Heathcote including Waltham in the Spreydon-Cashmere Ward, not the Heathcote Ward. The Commission has considered these suggestions carefully. As far as an Addington Ward is concerned, Addington does not have sufficient population (at approximately 6,700) to have its own ward on a 16-member council. The issue the other suggested changes present are that they are difficult to accommodate while still complying with the requirement in section 19V(2) that the population to member ratio for each ward fall within a +/-10% range. The alternative groupings suggested would either not meet this requirement or would require a large number of changes affecting adjacent wards. The Commission could apply the grounds in section 19V(3) that permit non-compliance to avoid splitting communities of interest or grouping together communities of interest with few commonalities of interest. However it does not consider the circumstances warrant this. Within a large urban area the boundaries of communities are not always as well defined as they might be in areas where topography clearly defines communities of interest. The Commission therefore decides not to make the changes suggested by appellants and objectors in this area.