THE BOWER BRIDGE.

Press, Volume LI, Issue 15219, 5 March 1915, Page 3

THE BOWER BRIDGE.

QUESTION OF MAINTENANCE. A Commission, presided over by Mr \V. S. Short, Assist ant-TJnder-Secretary of the Public Works Department, sat in the Government Buildings yesterday to consider the question of apportioning the cost of maintenance of the Bower bridge. ' ''~,. The representatives of the local bodies interested wore:—Messrs J. J. Dougall. S A. Staples, and W. P- Spencer OV*"mairi Coifnty Council), H. R. Smith and'A D Dobson (Christchurch City Council). G. Scott and J- K. Burton (Hcnthcote County Council), and A. F. Wright (New Brighton Borough). The Commissioner said the Heathcote County Council had asked for the enquiry,'claiming one-third of-the cost of maintenance from th e New Brighton. Borough- Council and the Waimairr County Council. The Waimai.ri County Countil had cited the Christchurch City Council on the ground that from the traffic census it appeared that one-third of the traffic came from the. city. Iho Commissioner said that if the City Council considered that a case had been made out against them it could apply for an adjournment of the Commission. Personally ho had been out to the bridge; it was a very small afiair and it was a question whether it was de.s.rable to drag tho City Council into the Steron the ground of pub,c pohey. Hβ thought it was a case where tho J<lJofning local bodies should come to an 'agreement without bringing the city into it. The Commissioner pointed out that the basis of «PPf tlo » me f Iffio- in case of a road was judged by traffic, in the case of a bridge tho bas lS of appor!i^JtJv l m^y n a^ S^m^nS^^nrX "The sl££cSS&nt, Council, being the first to move in the matter, was Sflcd upon first to state ,ts case, Mr Scott conducting it The bridge lie ™?d had been built about 18<6, and within recent years it had been understood *nd earned out that Hcathcote New Brighton, and Waimairi should contribute" or.e-U.ird of the cost of repairs and maintenance. Iho ™V™ rh fnd been very light up till a short time S. but the bridge was getting ,n a dilapidated condition, and now needed extensive work carried out on it. The estimated cost of repairing the bridge ,: as . f-20-2 10s. A conterence had alridv'been hold, when Heathcoto had airbed to pay one-third and the New Khton Council had agreed to follow "tit Th- Waimairi County Council had refuel to contribute anything to the upkeep of the bridge. Rising the bridee was unsafe, the Heathoote County Council had made ropaii-s (concrete abutments) totalling £44 6s yd. The Ueathcote County Council claimed a refund of one-third of this amount, and also asked thai the local bodies cited should be made to pay one-third of the future cost of maintenance. MScott put in a map oi the district, and went on to h ay that tho Heathcotc Council had shut up the bridge at one time but owiae to requests Jrom some ratepayers of the Waiman-i County Council the repairs roterred to had bo«n made and the r>ndge openwl. Mr .Scott argued hi* case at some length, contending that the advantages to M'aiEUiin County Council ratepayers were quite obvious. Mr J J. Dougall. for tho \\aimairi County' Council," said that the road ran very largely through the Hcatlioote County, and tU*> bridgo was part of an arwrv of the Heathcote Comity. The bridge was very much more material to New Brighton than either to Waimair'i and Ueathcote, a* muoh traffic came from the north of t-hrist-

church to New Brighton. The traffic, J on motors ami other vehicles, irom j Christchurch to New Brighton over the-: bridge was really enormous. Brighton j was one of the lungs of the City oi Christchurch, ami as such tho city MiouUl be a party to the maintenance of means of access to New Brighton. So far as New Brighton was concerned, its existence practically depended on the city, and tho two bodies most concerned in tho upkeep of tho bridge •.vere tho city and New Brighton, -lie suggested that the proportions of the upkeep should bo about as follows:— New Brighton 36 per cent. City [i' 2 per cent., Waimuiri and Heathcotc County Councils 16 per cent each. Mr * Wright j for the New Brighton Borough. Council, said it wa s his opinion that the Waimniri County Council was trying io get rid of an obligation which was clearly its duty to carry out. j A strong case had been made out why AVaimairi should nob be allowed to got | rid of its liabilities, but an equally strong case had not been made to unduly drag New Brighton into the matter. The Avon Road Board formerly had paid its share towards the bridge, but notv when the Hoad Board had been absorbed into the Wainniri County tho County protended that the bridge only touched a corner of tho county and did not benefit tho county as a whole. He thought . that if tho city was brought in and asked to pay 10 oi U0 j per cent* then the balance should be ] divided equally between the other lor-al j bodies concerned. For a wealthy ; county like Waimari to seek to cast its burdens on a small borough like , New Brighton was inequitable. I 3fr H. It. Smith, for the City ' Council, said that he had not had tiiii-.; to get evidence together. If the Commissioner considered thore was a case against the city he would a.sk for an adojurnmont. The Council claimed that by paying towards the upkeep of Pago's, road and the tramway bridge it did sufficient to provide for all Christ- ; church traffic to Nevr Brighton. The Commissioner said, seeing that tho Wnimari County Council would not agree to the City Council withdrawing. ' ]jp would adojurn the commission to enable the City Council to bring evidence to defend itself. Ho again repeated his statement that in his opinion it would bo wise to leave tho City Council out J of it. . J The enquiry was therefore adjourned > until 10.30 to-morrow morning, in the j Provincial Council Chambers. :