Home » Local government reorganisation Current applications

Alteration to the boundary between Horowhenua District and Palmerston North City

Overview:

Decision on request to include Opiki and Tokomaru in Palmerston North City

At its meeting on 20 May 2021, the Commission decided to not adopt a reorganisation plan for including Opiki and Tokomaru in Palmerston North City. It also decided to complete its investigation into the related request for a boundary alteration. This means that Opiki and Tokomaru will remain part of Horowhenua District.

Notification of the completion of the investigation will be published in relevant newspapers as soon as practicable and is being published here pursuant to clause 11(c) of Schedule 3 of the Local Government Act 2002.

Read more about the Commission’s decision on adopting a reorganisation plan for a boundary alteration between Horowhenua District and Palmerston North City (PDF, 519KB).

The Commission has made two recommendations as part of its decision. It has recommended that the Horowhenua District Council and the Palmerston North City Council work together to explore ways to enhance local government services in Opiki and Tokomaru. It has also recommended that the Horowhenua District Council provide clearer information to residents on its assets and services in Opiki and Tokomaru and how these are funded.

Read more about the Commission’s recommendations letter to Horowhenua District Council 28 May 2021 (PDF, 659KB) and Letter to the Palmerston North City Council 28 May 2021 (PDF, 672KB).

Read more about media statement on the Commission’s decision - Opiki and Tokomaru to remain part of Horowhenua District (PDF, 519KB).

Consultation on a request for Opiki and Tokomaru to become part of Palmerston North City

Submissions received

The Commission invited submissions in response to the public consultation document. It received 154 written submissions. These can be read here:

(Note: These submissions are divided into five separate PDF documents. Please refer to table below for submission reference name and number)

1. Submissions 001 - 050 (PDF, 15MB)

2. Submissions 051 - 100 (PDF, 15MB)

3. Submissions 101 - 129 (PDF, 16.2MB)

4. Submissions 130 - 145 (PDF, 18MB)

5. Submissions 146 - 154 (PDF, 21MB)

Name of submitter

Submission reference number

Tanenuiarangi Manawatū Incorporated

001

No name provided

002

Kirsty Gardner

003

Inez Schmidt

004

Adam Smith

005

Tania Thwaites

006

K M Marshall

007

No name provided

008

No name provided

009

Sarah

010

Sue Leathwick

011

Jeremy Outen

012

Helen

013

Aarin Bang

014

Thomas O'Connor

015

Terri Standish

016

Mark Spash

017

Francine

018

Tamiti Vinsen

019

Christine

020

No name provided

021

Jessie

022

Dave Finegan

023

Graham Purvis

024

Johanna Whitehead

025

T R Whiti

026

Nick Sneddon

027

Paul Goodwin

028

Charlotte and Thomas Campbell

029

Damian Glenny

030

Rachel Wilson

031

Jesse and Rose Luckman

032

Carl

033

T Barrie

034

Logan Broughton

035

Mark Anderson

036

Chris Schraders

037

Barry Manderson

038

Roger Middlemass

039

Amanda

040

Danny Dewes

041

Ben Parsons

042

Kristin

043

Clive Akers

044

Stuart McPhail

045

Leyton Gledhill

046

Javed Arshad

047

Michael Moleta

048

Christopher Lister

049

Julie Griffiths

050

Carl Robinson

051

Professor Norman Williamson (ONZM)

052

Rachel de Haas

053

Ken Anderson

054

Jill Jonasen

055

Beverley Stewart

056

Ryan Walmsley

057

Doreen Argyle

058

Iain Watson

059

No name provided

060

Jill and Nigel Spencer

061

Margaret Robinson

062

Gregory Downing

063

Melissa Norton

064

Carolyn Russell

065

Rodger Aitchison

066

Cheryl Wood

067

L Claridge

068

Bernard Watson

069

Bruce and Christine Gibbons

070

Jill Anderson

071

Ross Anderson

072

Alastair Cole

073

Milton Pedley

074

Marilyn Laing

075

Dean Paton

076

Gail and Kevin Russell

077

Bryan ten Have

078

Sally

079

David Argyle

080

Rhiannon Outen

081

Danielle Halcrow

082

Aroha Taimai

083

Chloe Stevens

084

Lynette Morgan

085

Katrina McGregor

086

Indianna

087

Bradley Farrow

088

Rebecca Louth

089

Tamati Vinsen

090

Rebecca Thompson

091

Abby Hodgkinson

092

Marama

093

Amy McKenzie Bang

094

Vanessa Hayward

095

Terry Olsen

096

Jim Craig

097

Judith Morris Wilson

098

Eugene Morris Wilson

099

Toni Snowball-Kui

100

Rob Nannestad

101

Brian Guerin

102

Kris Funnell

103

Kevin Claridge

104

Maria Viseur

105

Rhea Hyde

106

Alison McCarthy

107

Stefan Speller

108

Fran Wolber

109

L-J Baker

110

Chris

111

Maggie Wilson

112

Theresa Christison

113

M Mackay

114

Kirsty Anderson

115

Ronnie Parsons

116

Christine Sextus

117

Alison Robinson

118

Braeden Whitelock

119

Diana Timms

120

Maria Sudfeldt

121

Wayne Richards

122

Thomas O'Connor

123

Allan Lowe

124

Cindy Shepherd

125

Kathryn and Kelvin Lane

126

Gregory Ennor

127

Philip and Susan Ingram

128

Robyn Mouzouri

129

Eric Constantine

130

Lewis Rohloff

131

Edmund Moore

132

Dave Jonasen

133

Carey James

134

Peter Ward

135

Christine Toms

136

A Moore

137

Tony Mackereth

138

No name provided

139

L Morris

140

Beryl Persson

141

Hugh Moleta

142

Duncan Campbell

143

G Claridge

144

C and P Noaro

145

Richard Parker

146

Jill Bilsborrow

147

Bill and Pauline Keast

148

Anne Hunt

149

Horowhenua District Council

150

Bill Huzziff

151

Palmerston North City Council

152

Ken Riddle

153

Ngāti Whakatere

154

Release of public consultation document and call for feedback and submissions

The Commission is undertaking a second phase of consultation on the request to transfer Opiki and Tokomaru from Horowhenua District Council into Palmerston North City. It has released a public consultation document calling for feedback and submissions. The consultation document discusses the potential impacts of the requested alteration and the issues that the Commission must consider as part of its decision on the request.

Public Consultation Document (PDF, 2MB)

NOTE: The Commission identified that it was provided with incorrect information on indicative Palmerston North City rates which was included in its consultation document issued on 1 March 2021. On 5 March 2021 the Commission updated the document with corrected information on indicative Palmerston North City residential rates in the table on page 6. In the correcting of this information, it was highlighted that the change in indicative Palmerston North City rates for commercial and other non-commercial properties, would be material. For this reason, the consultation document has also been amended to include a table on these indicative rates and related explanations on page 5. The number of rating units in Opiki and Tokomaru that would be classified as commercial or other non-residential miscellaneous properties under Palmerston North City rules would be small and would also be determined on a case-by-case basis. These changes replace the original version dated 1 March 2021.

Kerbside Recycling charges

Kerbside recycling charges are not included in the indicative Palmerston North City rates in the consultation document. These are potentially up to $126 per annum per household under current Palmerston North City policies. These charges are not included because the type of kerbside recycling to be provided in Opiki and Tokomaru, would only be decided by Palmerston North City Council if the requested boundary alteration proceeded.

The online version of the submission form is at: www.surveymonkey.com/r/762DCMZ.

Feedback and submissions are open until midnight on 7 April 2021.

Feedback and submissions can be emailed to submissions@lgc.govt.nz or via post to the Local Government Commission, PO Box 5362, Wellington 6140. Respondents can also call the Commission on 04 460 2228.

There will be opportunities for submitters to speak at a hearing, provisionally scheduled for April 2021.

Earlier consultation on boundary alteration

As a first phase of consultation on a possible boundary alteration between Horowhenua District and Palmerston North City, the Commission decided to hold two public meetings in the affected area. This area includes the township of Tokomaru, the rural locality of Opiki and an adjoining area extending south towards Shannon.

In light of current restrictions on public gatherings arising out of the current Covid-19 alert level 2, the previously planned public meetings were postponed. These meetings will now proceed as follows:

  • Opiki Community Hall: Tuesday, 13 October 2020 at 3.30pm
  • Tokomaru Community Hall: Tuesday, 13 October 2020 at 7pm.

Public notice: Process for investigating possible boundary alteration

Reorganisation investigation process

At its meeting on 23 July 2020, the Commission adopted a reorganisation investigation process document for its investigation into the proposed boundary change between Horowhenua District and Palmerston North City potentially affecting Tokomaru, Opiki and an adjoining area extending south through Makerua towards Shannon. At its November 2020 meeting, the Commission authorised amendments to the process document to incorporate updated dates for the remaining steps in the investigation process. You can read the amended process document here:

Changes to Legislation

The Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Act 2019 came into effect on 21 October 2019.  This made significant changes to the law governing how local government reorganisation proposals are to be dealt with by the Local Government Commission.  

The existing reorganisation process in the Tokomaru Opiki area is deemed to be a “reorganisation investigation” in terms of the new legislation.  This means that rather than the process following a series of steps set down in the legislation, the Commission has more flexibility over the process it will follow, and is better able to design a process to fit the issues before it in any particular case.  

Before deciding on the process it will follow, however, the Commission is required to consult affected local authorities and iwi and hapū.  Once this has been done it will adopt a reorganisation investigation process document setting this process out.  Once this document has been adopted it will be published on this website.

The revised legislation can be accessed at Schedule 3 Local Government Act.

Alternative applications

Response to call for alternative applications 

At its meeting on 23 May 2019 the Commission received a single response to the call for alternative applications. You can read the response here:

The Commission decided to meet with the respondent and then undertake research and analysis before identifying the "reasonably practicable options” and its "preferred option".

Invitation for alternative applications

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. The period for alternative applications closed on 15 May 2019.

You can read the public notice here: 

The following information was prepared to assist those interested in submitting their own alternative reorganisation application or other proposal.

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 districts 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 the section 24 definition 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 the requirements 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.

Application for boundary change

Agreement to assess application

On 29 November 2018 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:

Having agreed to assess the application, the next step for the Commission was to invite alternative applications.

Receipt of application

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:

The group considered 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: