Papanui's Path from Village to City
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Page 1 Papanui’s path from village to city. A response to the question, “Was Papanui ever a borough?” Page 2 The settlement of Christchurch from late 1850, on a swampy and treeless plain, generated a huge demand for building materials and the Papanui bush with a 75 acre stand of totara, and red and white pine was inevitably quickly exploited. The village of Papanui developed along the eponymously named Sawyers Arms Road and straggled along the then North Road to its junction with Papanui and Harewood Roads. Such was the need for timber that the bush was cut out by the mid 1850s and although the village maintained a saw-milling industry to process the timber brought in from North Canterbury, the drained swamp was then found to provide rich soils suitable for horticulture and specifically for orcharding. Together, these industries provided enough employment to ensure that the village survived, and eventually the residents of Papanui started to exhibit an understandable interest in searching for a structure of local government which would deliver them maximum services as cheaply as possible. Initially there had been no choice. Under the provincial system, the Canterbury Provincial Council governed all settlements in the province centrally from Christchurch. However after 1862, boards could be formed to give local areas more input in decision-making about the construction of roads in their areas and Papanui became part of the first Avon Road Board. In the period until 1875, the first contracts were let in what was to become a formidable battle to drain the Papanui swamp, although it was rapidly becoming obvious that surface water and mud were not the only issues facing the young communities in and around Christchurch. The problem of disposing of rubbish and human waste had been ignored to the extent that diseases such as typhoid had become common and the apparent inability of existing local authorities to agree on any joint action led to the colonial parliament passing the Page 3 Christchurch Drainage Act of 1875. This statute set up a Board with the responsibility for planning and implementing a drainage and sanitation system over an area of 32.000 acres which included Papanui, and ran „from the Heathcote River in the south, to the to the Styx River watershed in the north, and from Upper Riccarton in the west to the sea‟.1 The Board which had rating powers, also became a de facto Health Board with powers to enforce centrally developed regulations for which staff, such as the Inspector of Nuisances, were specifically employed. Peter Perry later judged the Drainage Board to be „the first, most important, and most durable of city- wide ad hoc Institutions.2 In 1876, a seismic shift occurred in the way in which New Zealand was governed when the provincial system was abolished. In its place, a more powerful central government was to evolve but the effect on local government was just as significant. The Counties Act of 1876 divided New Zealand into sixty-three counties and Papanui became part of Selwyn, a large swathe of territory which wrapped around the city of Christchurch and extended from the Upper Rakaia in the South to the Waimakariri in the North. Selwyn County was further subdivided into sixteen Road Boards and Papanui became a ward within the newly constituted Avon Board which was bounded by Christchurch City to the South, and the Road Boards of Heathcote to the East, and Riccarton to the West. Thus by 1877, Papanui was administered by a Road Board 1 John Wilson, Christchurch, Swamp to City, Christchurch Drainage Board, 1989, p.16 2 Peter Perry in Cookson and Dunstall (eds), Southern Capital, Christchurch: Towards a City Biography, 1850-2000, Canterbury University Press, 2000, p.279. The Board survived until 1989 before being absorbed into the Christchurch City Council. Page 4 which was part of a much larger authority, the Selwyn County, and also paid rates to the Christchurch Drainage Board. To compound the confusion, under further legislation in 1876, communities could form themselves into boroughs,3 independent units that could administer their own affairs with the exception of matters that the Drainage Board controlled. Ambitious local communities who wanted to go it alone had to represent an area which was continuous but not exceeding nine square miles and no two points could be greater than six miles apart. Such an area had to have at least 250 resident householders, and at least 100 resident householders had to sign a petition to the government to force a poll of ratepayers.4 It was therefore relatively easy to secede from Selwyn and several communities within the County were quick to indulge in the Victorian predilection for public meetings and canvassing for signatures on petitions. By the end of the nineteenth century, St Albans, Linwood, Woolston, Sumner, Spreydon and New Brighton had all embarked on a journey of sturdy independence, none apparently worried that a relatively small number of ratepayers would struggle to absorb the fixed costs of the bureaucracy that was a requirement of even the smallest borough. Papanui‟s failure to achieve borough status did not indicate a community happy with its lot as a part of the Avon Road Board. The period from 1876 was notable for several surges of 3 The Municipal Corporations Act, 1876. This act was updated in the 1881 Town Districts Act and again in the 1920 Municipal Corporations Act although the conditions under which a municipality, i.e. a borough, could be formed were not materially altered. 4 Quoted in NZ Federation of University Women, Canterbury Branch, St Albans from Swamp to Suburbs, published by the authors, 1989, p.28. Page 5 impassioned lobbying from those unhappy with the status quo. The Avon Road Board District was basically rural in nature although it did include some areas of more intensive settlement. There was mutual suspicion between these interests as to which group benefited at the expense of the other. This perceived injustice was exacerbated by a system of rating based on the valuation of improved land, and it was felt that rural interests were unduly favoured. The Road Board was quite prepared for the more urban parts of their area to break away, perhaps to form themselves into a borough, and by mid- 1881, a new municipality was proposed which would take in Papanui, Merivale, St Albans and Richmond, (the latter then called Bingsland). A series of spirited, even chaotic public meetings occurred, and at one stage it appeared very likely that Papanui would become an integral part of a new borough based on all or most of the above areas. However, when it was decided that the new borough was to be called St Albans, the Papanui proponents of creating a municipality appeared to lose interest. The new borough‟s northern boundary ended at Normans Road and Mays Road and at least some Papanui citizens were still reluctant constituents of the Selwyn County and the Avon Road Board.5 The secessionists did not rest. The next scheme was to investigate the possibility of the Papanui ward of the Avon Road Board attaching itself to the Riccarton Road Board. „About fifty persons‟ attended a meeting at the Papanui Town Hall on 23 December 1881. A previous meeting had sanctioned an approach to the Riccarton Board and the latter had indicated a willingness to take over an area to the „west of the North Road‟; this limitation was due to disinclination on 5 Ibid., pp.28-29, for more details of these meetings. Page 6 the part of Riccarton to assume liability for maintaining it. J.W. Ellen, a former supporter of partial secession, confessed to the meeting that he had changed his mind because on reflection he had decided that Avon had provided „well made roads and side-channels‟ an assertion which was greeted with disbelief, or as the „Star‟ reporter noted in parentheses „(voices: No, No.)‟. D. Kruse then stated that the only change to the status quo he would support would be a unification of the whole area administered by the Avon and Riccarton Boards on the grounds that there would be cost savings. A motion to this effect was moved from the floor. At this stage the meeting which had already been characterised by „considerable confusion‟, „was hi-jacked by C.T.Ick, who was not even a local ratepayer, „although he intended to reside there‟, when he successfully moved an amendment that the meeting should be adjourned pending the obtaining of further information‟. The meeting ended with an impromptu petition being circulated to the Selwyn County „against division‟.6 This meeting appears to be an excellent example of the reasons why Papanui‟s status did not change at this time. Lack of accurate knowledge about the legal and financial implications of any adjustment was compounded by the absence of strong local leadership. There was a desire for change but no focus as to what form this change should take. Analysis of the reported speeches shows a surplus of rhetoric but a shortage of logical argument. The lack of agreement continued for the rest of the century, but although the debate sputtered it never really died. By 1908 meetings were still being called and petitions circulated so that the next generation of citizens could try to resolve the same issue that had perplexed its parents. On 10 6 The Star, 24 December 1881. Page 7 August, a thinly attended meeting of „some twenty ratepayers‟ elected a committee of seven representatives of Papanui and Riccarton „to consider what should be done‟.7 Their later proposal that the borough option once again should be considered generated much excitement and resulted in a „largely attended meeting‟ that featured the reading of a petition opposing the proposed borough.