Residents' forum plan scrapped by city councillors

City councillors voted against establishing a residents' forum which would have provided a space for residents to let their views on the council's decision-making process be heard. Photo: Geoff Sloan

A plan to break down barriers between the public and Christchurch City Council has been scrapped.

On Thursday, city councillors voted against establishing a residents' forum which would have provided a space for residents to let their views on the council's decision-making process be heard.

City council staff proposed forming the forum after feedback from the Annual Plan process and results from its residents' survey indicated that people did not feel they could have an impact on council decisions that affect their future.

Staff have also said members of the public in the past have questioned the transparency of the council's decision making, believing staff and councillors have their own agendas and often ignore the desires of residents.

City councillors also unanimously agreed in principle to forming a residents' forum earlier this year.

In spite of this, the majority of councillors in attendance voted against the motion to initiate the creation of the forum, with 10 councillors voting against it and only five in favour.

James Gough.

City councillor James Gough said he did not think the forum would make "a scrap of difference."

"In my view another group or panel or forum isn't the answer that people are looking for, they consistently tell us what is bothering them and they consistently tell us what they want. They are struggling to pay their rates, they want us to curb the rate rises and they want us to reign in spending and they want us to do the basics well," he said.

"Just listen to what they [residents] have already said and stop wasting their money."

Costs of establishing the forum were estimated to amount to between $10,000 and $15,000.

Mike Davidson.

City councillor Mike Davidson said he was "disappointed" to hear some of the views of his fellow councillors in what he labelled as an "anti-community anti-people stance."

"This is a low cost, low-risk initiative. It is one approach, it is not the only approach," he said.

"This is absolutely embarrassing from this council that values community, that values the opinions of people, that it won't actually look at another way of trying to get a bit more information from people. You [councillors] should be ashamed of yourself, it is absolutely disgusting."

Establishing the forum was proposed to happen in three phases. The first phase would have involved establishing an online people's panel and running workshops aimed at engaging harder-to-reach audiences. The second phase would have involved creating a plan for the long term which would be followed by an implementation plan.

Long term, it was hoped the forum could evolve to become a focus group to support and guide the council's engagement processes.

The votes:

For