submissions was concerns at the loss of local identity and weakening of local democracy. Other frequent themes were a preference for the status quo, a concern that the costs of change were too high, and that there was not sufficient evidence of a need for change. 7 of the 8 Community Boards that submitted (from across the Hutt, Kapiti, Wellington and South Wairarapa districts) opposed the draft. The table below summarises a sample of the submissions from community organisations, including all Community Board submissions. Table 6- Summary of selected submissions from Community Boards and Local Community Groups Name of organisation Key points on Proposal Preferred option/amendments? Neither supports nor opposes Benefits from Kapiti Coast Grey Power amalgamation can be Concern at degree of uncertainty (Kapiti Coast District) achieved through around costs and benefits in specific Potential for loss of local voice areas and impacts on rates of those on fixed incomes Opposes the proposal Status quo with Martinborough Community continued progress Concern over loss of local Board (South Wairarapa toward shared services knowledge and involvement District) Greater co-operation Opposes a single council Mount Victoria Residents between locally based Local democracy/decision Association (Wellington City) bodies making will be sacrificed A regional council that is Concern Wellington City more considerate of residents will pay for the debts of local views other councils Keep the status quo, Opposes the proposal Paraparaumu/Raumati keep community boards Acknowledge need for change in Community Board (Kapiti Coast acting as a voice for governance District) local communities and Concern over accessibility to stronger cooperation decision makers between councils Economic development Opposes the proposal Petone Community Board (Hutt functions could be Insufficient public support City) combined without Costs of change too high amalgamation Scope for increased shared services Amalgamation should Supports the proposal Pukerua Bay Residents be done soon but need Strikes a good balance between Association (Porirua City) more detail around improved regional efficiency and planning powers of local maintenance of local identity boards. Local boards should develop their own plans.
submissions was concerns at the loss of local identity and weakening of local democracy. Other frequent themes were a preference for the status quo, a concern that the costs of change were too high, and that there was not sufficient evidence of a need for change. 7 of the 8 Community Boards that submitted (from across the Hutt, Kapiti, Wellington and South Wairarapa districts) opposed the draft. The table below summarises a sample of the submissions from community organisations, including all Community Board submissions. Table 6- Summary of selected submissions from Community Boards and Local Community Groups Name of organisation Key points on Proposal Preferred option/amendments? Kapiti Coast Grey Power (Kapiti Coast District) Neither supports nor opposes Concern at degree of uncertainty around costs and benefits Potential for loss of local voice and impacts on rates of those on fixed incomes Benefits from amalgamation can be achieved through in specific areas Martinborough Community Board (South Wairarapa District) Opposes the proposal Concern over loss of local knowledge and involvement Status quo with continued progress toward shared services Mount Victoria Residents Association (Wellington City) Opposes a single council Local democracy/decision making will be sacrificed Concern Wellington City residents will pay for the debts of other councils Greater co-operation between locally based bodies A regional council that is more considerate of local views Paraparaumu/Raumati Community Board (Kapiti Coast District) Opposes the proposal Acknowledge need for change in governance Concern over accessibility to decision makers Keep the status quo, keep community boards acting as a voice for local communities and stronger cooperation between councils Petone Community Board (Hutt City) Opposes the proposal Insufficient public support Costs of change too high Economic development functions could be combined without amalgamation Scope for increased shared services Pukerua Bay Residents Association (Porirua City) Supports the proposal Strikes a good balance between improved regional efficiency and maintenance of local identity Amalgamation should be done soon but need more detail around planning powers of local boards. Local boards should develop their own plans.
Wellington-Summary-of-submissions-June-2015.docx