This is the cached copy of http://www.wellington.govt.nz/haveyoursay/elections/repreview/pdfs/determination-2007.pdf

Page 1
LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION
Determination
of representation arrangements to apply for
the election of the Wellington City Council
to be held on 13 October 2007
Background
1.
The Wellington City Council (the Council) elected at the 2004 local elections
comprises the mayor and 14 councillors elected as follows:
Wards
Population*
Number of
councillors
per ward
Population
per
councillor
Deviation
from city
average
population
per councillor
Percentage
deviation
from city
average
population
per councillor
Northern
42,400
3
14,133
+911.57
+6.89
Onslow-Western
37,000
3
12,333
-888.43
-6.72
Lambton
45,200
3
15,067
+1,845.57
+13.96
Eastern
34,700
3
11,567
-1,654.43
-12.51
Southern
25,800
2
12,900
-321.43
-2.43
TOTALS
185,100
14
13,221.43
*These figures are rounded 2005 population estimates provided by the Government Statistician
2.
Currently there are two community boards in Wellington City. The Tawa
Community Board covers part of the Northern Ward and the Makara-Ohariu
Community Board covers parts of the Onslow-Western and Northern Wards.
The Tawa Community Board comprises six elected members and two
appointed members. The Makara-Ohariu Community Board comprises six
elected members.
3.
It is noted that the Wellington City Council uses the STV electoral system.
4.
On 28 June 2006 the Council resolved, under sections 19H and 19J of the
Local Electoral Act 2001 (the Act), its initial proposed representation
arrangements to apply for the 2007 local elections. These were publicly
notified on 8 July 2006.
5.
The Council’s initial proposal was as follows:
(a) the Council comprise 14 councillors (and the mayor) elected from five
wards as follows:
Page 2
Wards
Population*
Number of
councillors
per ward
Population
per
councillor
Deviation
from city
average
population
per councillor
Percentage
deviation
from city
average
population
per councillor
Northern
42,400
3
14,133
+911.57
+6.89
Onslow-Western
40,250
3
13,417
+195.57
+1.48
Lambton
40,350
3
13,450
+228.57
+1.73
Eastern
37,180
3
12,393
-828.43
-6.27
Southern
24,920
2
12,460
-761.43
-5.76
TOTALS
185,100
14
13,221.43
*These figures are rounded 2005 population estimates provided by the Government Statistician
(b) the existing Makara-Ohariu Community Board be extended to include the
rural suburbs of Takapu Valley (excluding the suburban centre in Takapu
Valley) and Horokiwi (excluding Hutt Road), the altered community be
renamed the Wellington Rural Community, and the board consist of seven
elected members; and
(c) the existing Tawa Community Board be abolished.
6.
In resolving its initial proposal, the Council noted that the existing ward
boundaries do not satisfy the fairness provisions of the Act but that these will
be achieved with the following three boundary adjustments:
• transfer of Roseneath from the Lambton Ward to the Eastern Ward;
• transfer of Wadestown from the Lambton Ward to the Onslow-Western
Ward; and
• transfer of Southgate from the Southern Ward to the Eastern Ward.
7.
In notifying its proposal on community boards, the Council noted that:
• in respect of the Makara-Ohariu Community Board:
o 73% of the people who took part in pre-review consultation
supported the retention of the board on the basis that the
community was a “special” case and needed local advocacy;
o the board currently provides the Council with expert advice (based
on first-hand knowledge) on a range of rural issues that would not
be available if the board did not exist;
o because of its size (65% of the city’s total area), its unique
characteristics and environmental importance to the city, the
Council agrees that the rural community needs a level of
representation within the Council’s governance structure;
o the rural areas of Takapu Valley and Horokiwi lack rural
representation and it is therefore proposed to extend the existing
Makara-Ohariu Community to include these rural suburbs; and
o the advantage of this proposal is that almost all rural land in
Wellington City would then be under the jurisdiction of one
community board, to be named the Wellington Rural Community
Board;
• in respect of the Tawa Community Board:
2
Page 3
o the Council had carried out a review of community boards to
determine whether they were necessary to provide fair and
effective representation for individuals and communities, and as a
result of this review the Council had decided that the establishment
of more community boards across the city was not necessary to
achieve these requirements and was therefore not supported;
o this view was supported by 73% of those people who took part in
pre-review consultation; and
o while there was strong support for the retention of the Makara-
Ohariu Community Board (because of its specialised and unique
role), the majority view of the Council was that if no more boards
were to be established in the city, the retention of the Tawa
Community Board could not be supported on fairness grounds (i.e.
the electors of the Tawa Community receive an additional level of
representation other urban residents do not receive).
8.
The Council received 598 submissions on its initial proposal as follows:
• 14 covering a range of issues including at large elections (under the STV
electoral system), a mixed system of representation, and the number of
councillors;
• 18 opposed to proposed ward boundaries as follows:
o Roseneath: 11;
o Wadestown: one;
o Southgate: two;
• five proposed alternative boundary options;
• 556 on the proposal to abolish the Tawa Community Board as follows:
o 539 opposed with a petition signed by 700+ people;
o 17 in support;
• 29 on the proposal to extend Makara-Ohariu Community Board as follows:
o 14 supported the status quo;
o seven supported abolition of Makara-Ohariu Community Board;
o eight supported the Council’s proposal.
9.
Following consideration of submissions, the Council, on 27 September 2006,
confirmed its initial proposal as its final proposal in relation to the basis of
election and the number of councillors (i.e. 14 councillors plus the mayor)
elected from five wards.
10.
The Council, however, resolved to amend its initial proposal relating to
community representation as follows:
• the proposal to abolish the Tawa Community Board be rescinded so that it
is retained with its existing boundaries and current numbers of both
elected and appointed members; and
• the proposal to extend the Makara-Ohariu Community to include the rural
suburbs of Takapu Valley and Horokiwi and for the altered community to
be renamed the Wellington Rural Community, be rescinded.
3
Page 4
11.
Eight appeals/objections were received against the Council’s proposal. The
main concerns of the appellants/objectors related to:
• the proposed transfer of the Roseneath area from the Lambton Ward to
the Eastern Ward, and the transfer of Southgate from the Southern Ward
to the Eastern Ward;
• the general approach to the review and identification of wards;
• the retention of the Tawa Community Board; and
• the decision not to provide for rural representation by way of a rural
community board or rural community sub-committee.
Hearing
12.
The Commission met with the Council, appellants/objectors and
representatives of the two community boards who accepted an invitation to
appear in support of the Council’s proposal, at a hearing held in the
Wellington City Council Committee Room on 5 March 2007. The Council was
represented by the Mayor Kerry Prendergast, the Council’s Chief Executive
Garry Poole and the Electoral Officer Ross Bly. The appellants/objectors who
appeared at the hearing were: Warwick Taylor of the Wellington Residents’
Coalition Southern Branch; Bill Fair; Victor Davie; Alec Waugh, President of
the Roseneath Residents’ Association; Bernie Harris; Barry Blackhurst from
the Glenside Progressive Association; and Stan Andis.
Matters raised in appeals, objections and at the hearing
13.
The main arguments presented in relation to the proposed transfer of
Roseneath from the Lambton Ward to the Eastern Ward were:
• there is a depth of feeling against the proposed transfer and Roseneath
being treated as a “political appendage” with its transfer between wards
simply to comply with a legislative formula;
• 81% of respondents to a Council questionnaire favoured the transfer of
Roseneath into the Lambton Ward when this occurred in 2000;
• the transfer was well received by residents and there has been no
community move to attempt to reverse the decision;
• the prevailing community of interest, socially and geographically, is with
the inner city and central business district covered by the Lambton Ward;
and
• the Roseneath Residents’ Association has developed a good working
relationship with the Oriental Bay Residents’ Association, working in
partnership on issues of common concern, and both Associations oppose
the transfer of Roseneath out of the Lambton Ward.
14.
The main arguments presented in relation to the proposed transfer of
Southgate from the Southern Ward to the Eastern Ward were:
• inspection of a topographical map clearly shows Southgate as part of an
“Island Bay bowl” with the streets running down to Island Bay;
• Southgate has the same postcode as Island Bay and other areas in the
Southern Ward;
4
Page 5
• residents in the area do not support the proposed transfer;
• the transfer is not actually required at this stage for compliance with the
+/-10% rule, and is simply based on a speculative future possibility; and
• other options would be to juggle the total number of councillors.
15.
The following points were made in respect of the review generally and the
identification of wards:
• the Council should have treated the review as a greenfields exercise and
as a way to address the big issues facing the city identified in the
Council’s long-term council community plan;
• the Council, however, simply went back to the status quo;
• suburbs are not an appropriate basis for identifying wards;
• fewer and larger wards are desirable to achieve the full benefits of the
STV electoral system;
• a three- or four-ward option could be achieved, moving the Onslow area
into the Northern Ward and combining the other wards;
• three- to six-member wards would be more effective;
• there appeared to be a reluctance by the Council to consider increasing
the number of councillors; and
• the ‘three plus three plus three plus three plus two’ member structure is
unbalanced between the wards.
16.
The main arguments presented in relation to retention of the Tawa
Community Board were:
• Tawa is a distinct community of interest physically and socially;
• there is a history of a ‘sense of town’ and of self-governance which is
reflected in Tawa having been a separate borough prior to 1989;
• Tawa has suffered an erosion in representation since 1989;
• the board is a good model of local democratic decision-making in action;
• the board provides effective representation and advocacy;
• the board has developed good working relationships with local groups and
organisations such as police, fire, local schools and churches;
• the board is supported by the community with eight candidates at recent
elections, and five candidates for a recent byelection;
• board meetings are relatively well attended by local residents;
• the board is not a financial burden, with annual administration costs of
$27,000 compared to the rates take from the area of $8.5 million; and
• Tawa receives an unfair level of representation compared to other areas
of the city.
17.
The main arguments presented in relation to the Makara-Ohariu Community
Board were:
• the rural community board initially proposed by the Council would have
covered a large and disjointed area;
5
Page 6
• the proposed board would have meant a significant redefinition of the
community of interest compared to the community of interest of the
Makara-Ohariu Community;
• the Makara-Ohariu Community has no particular affinity with the enlarged
area;
• the Makara-Ohariu Community Board has a good working relationship
with the Council which is not always confined to rural issues;
• representation for the rural areas of the city as initially proposed by the
Council, in the form of a rural community board, would have been useful;
• a ‘rural issues advisory board or committee’ was worth considering
further; and
• individual areas will continue to seek appropriate representation of their
interests.
18.
Some appellants/objectors raised procedural issues relating to the Council’s
approach to the review such as the appropriate population figures to use.
These are not matters over which the Commission has jurisdiction. In any
event the Commission will make its own determination using what it believes,
under the legislation, to be the appropriate approach.
Matters for Determination
19.
The statutory provisions in respect of objections are contained in sections
19R, 19H and 19J of the Act.
19R. Commission to determine appeals and objections
(1)
The Commission must—
(a)
Consider the resolutions, submissions, appeals, objections,
and information forwarded to it under section 19Q; and
(b)
Subject to sections 19T and 19V in the case of a territorial
authority, and to sections 19U and 19V in the case of a
regional council, determine,—
(i)
In the case of a territorial authority that has made a
resolution under section 19H, the matters specified in that
section:
(ii) In the case of a regional council that has made a
resolution under section 19I, the matters specified in that
section:
(iii) In the case of a territorial authority that has made a
resolution under section 19J, the matters specified in that
section.
(2)
For the purposes of making a determination under subsection (1)(b),
the Commission—
(a)
May make any enquiries that it considers appropriate; and
(b)
May hold, but is not obliged to hold, meetings with the territorial
authority or regional council or any persons who have lodged
an appeal or objection and have indicated a desire to be heard
by the Commission in relation to that appeal or objection.
(3)
The Commission must, before 11 April in the year of a triennial general
election, complete the duties it is required to carry out under
subsection (1).
6
Page 7
19H. Review of representation arrangements for elections of territorial
authorities
(1)
A territorial authority must determine by resolution, and in accordance
with this Part,—
(a)
Whether the members of the territorial authority (other than the
mayor) are proposed to be elected—
(i)
By the electors of the district as a whole; or
(ii)
By the electors of 2 or more wards; or
(iii)
In some cases by the electors of the district as a whole
and in the other cases by the electors of each ward of
the district; and
(b)
In any case to which paragraph (a)(i) applies, the proposed
number of members to be elected by the electors of the district
as a whole; and
(c)
In any case to which paragraph (a)(iii) applies,—
(i)
The proposed number of members to be elected by the
electors of the district as a whole; and
(ii)
The proposed number of members to be elected by the
wards of the district; and
(d)
In any case to which paragraph (a)(ii) or paragraph (a)(iii)
applies,—
(i)
The proposed name and the proposed boundaries of
each ward; and
(ii)
The number of members proposed to be elected by the
electors of each ward.
(2)
The determination required by subsection (1) must be made by a
territorial authority —
(a)
On the first occasion, either in 2003 or in 2006; and
(b)
Subsequently, at least once in every period of 6 years after the
first determination.
(3)
This section must be read in conjunction with section 19ZH and
Schedule 1A.
19J. Review of community boards
(1)
A territorial authority must, on every occasion on which it passes a
resolution under section 19H, determine by that resolution, and in
accordance with this Part, not only the matters referred to in that
section but also whether, in light of the principle set out in section
4(1)(a) (which relates to fair and effective representation for individuals
and communities) —
(a)
There should be communities and community boards; and
(b)
If so resolved, the nature of any community and the structure of
any community board.
(2)
The resolution referred to in subsection (1) must, in particular,
determine—
(a)
Whether 1 or more communities should be constituted:
(b)
Whether any community should be abolished or united with
another community:
(c)
Whether the boundaries of a community should be altered:
(d)
Whether a community should be subdivided for electoral
purposes or whether it should continue to be subdivided for
electoral purposes, as the case may require:
(e)
Whether the boundaries of any subdivision should be altered:
(f)
The number of members of any community board:
7
Page 8
(g)
The number of members of a community board who should be
elected and the number of members of a community board who
should be appointed:
(h)
Whether the members of a community board who are proposed
to be elected are to be elected—
(i)
By the electors of the community as a whole; or
(ii)
By the electors of 2 or more subdivisions; or
(iii)
If the community comprises 2 or more whole wards, by
the electors of each ward:
(i)
in any case to which paragraph (h)(ii) applies, -
(i)
The proposed name and the proposed boundaries of
each subdivision; and
(ii)
The number of members proposed to be elected by the
electors of each subdivision.
(3)
Nothing in this section limits the provisions of section 19F.
Consideration by the Commission
Effective and fair representation
20.
A review of representation arrangements under the Act is to ensure that:
• the method adopted for the election of members (i.e. at large, wards, or a
combination of both) will provide effective representation of communities
of interest within the district (section 19T); and
• in determining the number of members to be elected by each ward,
electors of that ward will receive fair representation (section 19V).
21.
For the purpose of achieving fair representation, section 19V(2) requires that
the population of each ward divided by the number of members to be elected
by that ward produces a figure no more than 10% greater or smaller than the
population of the district divided by the total number of elected members. The
Act does not define ‘effective representation’ or ‘communities of interest’.
22.
The steps in the process for achieving effective and fair representation are
not statutorily prescribed. The Commission believes that the following
approach to determining representation arrangements will achieve a robust
outcome that is in accordance with the statutory criteria:
(a)
identify the city’s communities of interest;
(b)
determine the best means of providing effective representation of the
communities of interest; and
(c)
determine fair representation of electors for the city.
Wellington City
23.
The Council commenced its review by undertaking pre-review public
consultation on representation arrangement options. In its discussion
document, it identified options of at large and a mix of at large and wards.
The ward system, however, still attracted strong community support. The
response rate to the pre-review consultation was comparatively low (190
submissions received). We believe, however, there is sufficient indication
from both the pre-review and statutory consultation exercises of support for a
8
Page 9
ward system as the best means to provide effective representation for
communities of interest. The city has used the ward system since 1986.
24.
One appellant did question whether the Council’s use of suburbs was the
most appropriate basis for identifying wards. We are satisfied, in the absence
of evidence of a more appropriate method and of widespread dissatisfaction
with this approach, that the use of suburbs is an appropriate mechanism. We
note also that the Council undertook an extensive review of suburb
boundaries in 2003 that included public consultation.
25.
The Council subsequently identified the current five wards as appropriate
groupings of communities of interest. We note in its pre-review consultation,
that the Council did identify a three-ward option as a modification of the five-
ward model, with Onslow the only area changing wards (from the Western to
the Northern Ward) in order to comply with the +/-10% rule. Under this option
the five current wards would be combined as follows: Northern, Western-
Lambton, and Eastern-Southern.
26.
We are satisfied that the current ward structure does reflect an appropriate
grouping of communities of interest in the city. We note the appeals
supporting a three-ward structure largely on the basis of achieving maximum
potential from the STV electoral system as a system of proportional
representation. We also note that the electoral system is not a statutory
criterion in the consideration of the basis of election and that it is a matter for
the Council to consider at its discretion.
27.
Given these findings, we then proceeded on the basis of consideration of the
five-ward structure as a means of providing effective representation of
communities of interest and fair representation of electors. We note that the
only appeals/objections in relation to the proposed ward boundaries relate to
the Roseneath and Southgate areas.
28.
In respect of the Roseneath area, we acknowledge the points made by the
Residents’ Association in support of Roseneath remaining in the Lambton
Ward. The only provision for an exception to the fair representation +/-10%
rule, however, is in the case of isolated communities and clearly this does not
apply in the case of Wellington City nor did anyone attempt to argue this. On
this basis, the Council identified Roseneath as the “only logical community of
interest to shift” in order for the Lambton Ward to comply with the +/-10% rule.
Having inspected the area, we agree with the Council. As the Council pointed
out, moving Roseneath to the Eastern Ward makes the boundaries of this
ward consistent with the Rongotai Parliamentary Electorate. We also note
that, while part of Roseneath does look west toward the central city area and
may well feel an affinity with the Lambton Ward, other parts clearly look east
and the boundary between Roseneath and Hataitai, located in the Eastern
Ward, is not a distinct demarcation. We find, as a result, that Roseneath will
transfer from the Lambton Ward to the Eastern Ward.
29.
The Council also identified Wadestown as an area that could be moved from
the Lambton Ward to the Onslow-Western Ward. This was with a view to
providing a fairer balance of representation across the wards at least into the
immediate future, given the present disproportionate rate of population growth
in the Lambton Ward. The Council’s initial proposal attracted only one
submission on this issue. We agree with the Council that the transfer of
Wadestown is an appropriate step and determine accordingly.
9
Page 10
30.
In relation to the proposal to transfer Southgate from the Southern Ward to
the Eastern Ward we were persuaded by the clarity of the appeal against this
proposal and that Southgate is geographically part of the “Island Bay basin”
and should remain in the Southern Ward. We determine accordingly.
31.
We heard no other appeals or representations in respect of ward boundaries
and accordingly confirm, in all other respects, the Council’s ward proposals.
32.
One appellant proposed an increase in the number of councillors to 15,
allowing three councillors to be elected by the Southern Ward. This could not
be achieved within the fair representation +/-10% rule. We heard no other
representations on this issue, or on the total number of councillors generally,
and we agree with the Council that there be a total of 14 councillors.
33.
We are advised that some minor meshblock alterations are required to ensure
that these do not divide particular properties. These do not affect the
achievement of effective or fair representation in respect of wards and will
become part of this determination.
34.
We believe that the above decisions will provide effective representation for
the communities of interest of Wellington City. They also comply with the
requirement for fair representation of electors. The relationship between
these decisions on ward boundaries, the number of councillors per ward, and
the requirements of section 19V(2) is illustrated in the following table:
Wards
Population*
Number of
councillors
per ward
Population
per
councillor
Deviation
from city
average
population
per councillor
Percentage
deviation
from city
average
population
per councillor
Northern
42,400
3
14,133
+911.57
+6.89
Onslow-Western
40,250
3
13,417
+195.57
+1.48
Lambton
40,350
3
13,450
+228.57
+1.73
Eastern
36,300
3
12,100
-1,121.43
-8.48
Southern
25,800
2
12,900
-321.43
-2.43
TOTALS
185,100
14
13,221.43
*These figures are rounded 2005 population estimates provided by the Government Statistician
Communities and community boards
35.
Section 19W of the Act sets out criteria for community board reviews. These
include requirements for effective representation of communities of interest
within the community and fair representation of electors.
36.
We note that the Council undertook a review of representation arrangements
prior to the 2004 local elections and on this basis was not required by the Act
to undertake a further review until prior to the 2010 local elections. The
Council, however, resolved in 2003 to review the issue of community boards
on a city-wide basis prior to the 2007 local elections and confirmed this
decision in April 2006. As such a review could not be undertaken in isolation,
a further full representation review was required to be undertaken.
37.
The Council’s pre-review consultation document asked respondents whether
the establishment of community boards across the city would provide fairer
and more effective representation for individuals and communities in
Wellington City. A total of 138 respondents (72%) said ‘no’.
10
Page 11
38.
In notifying its initial proposal to abolish the Tawa Community Board, the
Council referred to the outcome of the pre-review consultation. It advised that
it had decided that the establishment of more community boards across the
city was not necessary to achieve the requirements for effective and fair
representation. It noted that, while there was strong support for the retention
of the Makara-Ohariu Community Board (because of its specialised and
unique role), the majority view of the Council was that if no more boards were
to be established in the city, the retention of the Tawa Community Board
could not be supported on fairness grounds (i.e. the electors of the Tawa
Community receive an additional level of representation other urban residents
don’t receive).
39.
The Council received 556 submissions (out of a total of 598) in response to its
initial proposal to abolish the Tawa Community Board. Of the 556
submissions:
• 539 opposed the proposal including a petition signed by over 700 people;
and
• 17 supported the board’s abolition.
40.
Following consideration of the submissions, the Council changed its initial
proposal and proposed the retention of the Tawa Community Board. In
notifying its decision the Council advised that:
• a significant number of individuals and organisations from the Tawa
Community strongly opposed the abolition of the board;
• residents clearly showed they value the efforts of the board;
• residents provided a number of reasons why Tawa’s community of
interest is distinct and different and why the board should be retained to
ensure the effective representation of the community’s interests and fair
representation of its electors; and
• submitters stated, and the Council agreed, that the fact other communities
did not appear to want community boards was no reason why Tawa
should have its board taken away.
41.
Given the level of community support for the retention of the Tawa
Community Board and the arguments made by representatives of the board
at the hearing, as recorded earlier, we agree with the Council’s proposal to
retain the board and determine accordingly.
42.
We are advised that some minor meshblock alterations are required to ensure
an appropriate alignment of the Tawa Community with individual meshblocks.
These do not affect the achievement of effective or fair representation in any
respect and will become part of this determination.
43.
In respect of the Makara-Ohariu Community Board, the Council, in notifying
its final proposal advised that:
• submitters strongly supported retention of the board in its current form;
• in the view of submitters the current board represents a distinct
community of interest;
11
Page 12
• including the rural suburbs of Takapu Valley and Horokiwi, and possibly
Glenside, changes the board’s role from representing a geographically
contiguous community of interest, to representing rural issues across the
city in general;
• this creates an artificial body that does not really cover a definable
community; and
• retention of the Makara-Ohariu Community Board results in the Council
still receiving expert advice (based on first-hand knowledge) on a range of
issues faced by a community that takes in 59% of the city’s total area and
has unique characteristics and environmental importance to the city.
44.
Again, given the level of community support for the retention of the Makara-
Ohariu Community Board and the arguments made by representatives of the
board at the hearing, as recorded earlier, we agree with the Council’s
proposal to retain this board and determine accordingly.
45.
We are advised that further minor meshblock alterations are required to
ensure an appropriate alignment of the Makara-Ohariu Community with
individual meshblocks. These do not affect the achievement of effective or
fair representation in any respect and will become part of this determination.
46.
In respect of both boards, we heard no arguments to change current
membership arrangements (i.e. the number of elected and appointed
members) and, accordingly, we determine that current arrangements will be
retained.
Commission’s Determination
47.
Under section 19R of the Local Electoral Act 2001, the Commission
determines that for the general election of the Wellington City Council to be
held on 13 October 2007, the following representation arrangements shall
apply –
(1)
Wellington City as delineated on SO Plan 35959 deposited with Land
Information New Zealand, shall be divided into five wards;
(2)
Those five wards shall be -
(a) the Northern Ward, comprising the area delineated on SO Plan
No. 37883 deposited with Land Information New Zealand;
(b) the Onslow-Western Ward, comprising the area delineated on
SO Plan No. 335633 deposited with Land Information New
Zealand;
(c) the Lambton Ward, comprising the area delineated on SO Plan
No. 37886 deposited with Land Information New Zealand;
(d) the Eastern Ward, comprising the area delineated on SO Plan
No. 37887 deposited with Land Information New Zealand; and
(e) the Southern Ward, comprising the area delineated on SO Plan
No. 37888 deposited with Land Information New Zealand;
(3)
The Council shall comprise the mayor and 14 councillors elected as
follows -
(a) three councillors elected by the electors of the Northern Ward;
12
Page 13
(b) three councillors elected by the electors of the Onslow-Western
Ward;
(c) three councillors elected by the electors of the Lambton Ward;
(d) three councillors elected by the electors of the Eastern Ward;
and
(e) two councillors elected by the electors of the Southern Ward;
(4)
There shall be two communities as follows:
(a) the Tawa Community, comprising the area delineated on SO
Plan 37411 deposited with Land Information New Zealand; and
(b) the Makara-Ohariu Community, comprising the area delineated
on SO Plan 36004 deposited with Land Information New
Zealand;
(5)
The membership of the community board for each community shall be
comprised as follows:
(a) the Tawa Community Board: six elected members and two
members of the Council representing the Northern Ward and
appointed to the community board by the Council; and
(b) the Makara-Ohariu Community Board: six elected members.
48.
As required by sections 19T(b) and 19W(c) of the Local Electoral Act 2001,
the boundaries of the above wards and communities coincide with the
boundaries of current statistical meshblock areas determined by Statistics
New Zealand and used for Parliamentary electoral purposes.
FOR THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION
Gwen Bull
(Commissioner)
Wynne Raymond
(Commissioner)
10 April 2007
13