HINDS DRAINAGE SCHEME

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 70, Issue 130, 17 March 1950, Page 2

HINDS DRAINAGE SCHEME

COST OF BRIDGES

COUNTY COUNCIL’S SHARE The Ashburton County Council and representatives of the South Canterbury Catchment Board met in Ashburton on February 21 to discuss the question of payment by the council of a share of the cost of bridges and culverts in connection with the Hinds drain- f age scheme. The meeting was not open to the newspapers, but at to-day’s meeting of the County Council the following report was presented: “Cr. M. D. McDowell extended a welcome to members of the Catchment Board and expressed the hope that the question of apportionment of the cost of bridges and culverts in the Hinds drainage area would be amicably and satisfactorily settled. “Dr. P. R. Woodhouse suitably replied. He referred to a letter of July 5, 1949, from the Catchment Board to the council and the council’s reply. He stated that in the letter from the Catchment Board special reference was made to Spicer’s drain culvert, Osborne’s Road. He asked the council’s representatives to consider the wider aspect of the drainage scheme, the benefits derived by the county ab a whole and the increase which might be expected from rates in view of the improvement to the land. When estimates were prepared and submitted to the Loans Board <the council’s contribution was shown at £2ODO, although he admitted the council had not agreed to pay this amount. The amount now offered by the council was £1234. The board would accept a contribution from the county, but he would like the amount to be reconsidered in view of added benefits. He suggested that any grant made should be for general benefits received, in-’ eluding bridge culverts as this might make some difference in the subsidy from the Soil Conservation Council. Construction of Cut-off “Mr R. D. Robinson referred to the construction of Mulligan’s cut-off which was constructed by the council, the cost being shared by Upper Ashburton, Rangitata and Ashburton Ridings. He stated that the cost was £BOO and £3OO had been spent on bridges to give access to farm property. He referred to general benefits to roads which he contended resulted from the construction of Shepherd’s Bush cut-off and Timaru Track cut-off. “Cr. J. Davidson rose to a point of order and stated that Mulligan s cutoff was not a matter for discussion and had no bearing on the point at issue. He stated that since the offer of £1234 had been made to the board the question of lowering of the standard of work on bridges and culverts had been discussed, and it had been suggested that the Catchment Board should assume liability for the , maintenance thereof for a peroid of 10 years. He asked what the attitude of the board would be to this proposal. “Dr. Woodhouse said that as far as the Soil Conservation Council was concerned, maintenance of such structures on roads was the responsibility of the roading authority. “Cr. S. P. Taylor suggested that because of some of the unsatisfactory work on bridges and culverts the council would he assuming additional liability of anything up to £IOOO. Wing walls and head walls were not deep enough and did not extend far enough. In some cases concrete structures had been replaced with concrete abutments and wooden decks which meant an increased liability in the future. “Mr H. G. Kemp said that the location of the Windermere Road Bridge had been altered without the knowledge of the hoard or council. Nevertheless the present location was definitely preferable and a benefit to the council from a roading point of view. He suggested that the council’s decision regarding this bridge and other similar cases should be reviewed. Drains , Neglected “Cr. E. S. Barnes said that the necessity for drainage works arose because of the neglect in maintaining drains over a period of years. He had found pipes 18 inches below the bottom of existing drains. He was of the opinion that the council had taken a very fair view when offering to contribute £1234. “Mr 'Lucy said the drains were designed to ! -carry 16 cusecs per square mile and allow approximately 3ft. of freeboard to general ground level. “Mr R. L. Lindsay said that if this was the case the drains were actually constructed to carry nearer to s 4O cusecs than 16 cusecs per square mile. “In reply to Dr. Woodhouse he stated that the council had applied to the board for a list showing all alterations it proposed to carry out to bridges and culverts. Only one plan was supplied by the board, and this showed that the culvert at Spicers drain on Osbornes Road as too high and too small for the board’s requirements and the council’s'letter of, July 29, 1949, was based on this information. Apparently the copy of the plan held by the board was amended at a later date, and no notification of amendment was forwarded to the council. “Mr Lucy said this was practically the position, although the drains were not actually designed for 40 cusecs. “The possible effect on rating of improvements to the land through drainage was also discussed. “The South Canterbury Catchment Board then submitted detailed proposals showing the costs of bridges and culverts and a proposed county contribution. The total expenditure amounted to £11,894 Is and the board proposed that the council should contribute £3598 12s 2d. The schedule, amounting to £12,335, on which the council’s offer of £1234 was based was compiled before all works were complete and some figures quoted were estimates only. “Cr. Taylor drew attention to the fact that the bridge over Dawsons drain on Dawsons Road had cost £613 and the estimated cost of which the council had agreed to contribute half was £407. He thought that in this and similar cases the council’s share should be the percentage agreed upon based on actual cost. “Mr Robinson expressed appreciation of Cr. Taylor’s attitude in this matter. “The chairman stated that the county’s proposal would be consider-

ed by the committee and recommendations would be made to the council. • “Representatives of the South Canterbury Catchment Board then retired. “Figures were then submitted showing that if the percentage of contribution agreed to by the council in each case was applied to the actual cost of each structure the council’s contribution' would be £1277 13s. After further discussion the committee decided to recommend its follows:—That the council agrees to increase its original offer from £1234 to £ISOO to cover its share of the cost of the construction of and alteration to ail bridges and culverts in the Ashburton-Hinds Drainage Scheme provided the South Canterbury Catchment Board agrees to pay the cost of repairs or replacements of wing or head walls on all culverts or bridges altered or constructed by the South Canterbury Catchment Board which are damaged by floods or erosion during the next five years.” The report was adopted.