NEW BRIGHTON BRIDGE.

Press, Volume LXIII, Issue 19064, 28 July 1927, Page 7

NEW BRIGHTON BRIDGE.

MEETING OF PROTEST.

DEPUTATION TO WAIT ON BOROUGH COUNCIL.

"That this meeting expresses its disappointment with the majority judgment of the Court of Appeal, and hopes that some way will be found for securing the erection of a bridge with sufficient clearance for navigation purposes." The above motion was carried at a public meeting held I 3B ' l night in the City Council Chambers to consider what steps should be taken to prevent the erection of the proposed new ferro-concrete bridge over the Avon at New Brighton with a clearance of only four feet. The Mayor of Christchurch (Mr J. ■K. Archer), who presided over an attendance of ibout sixty persons, read a letter from Mr H. G. Livingstone, chairman of the River Improvement Committee of the Christchurch Drainage Board, in which the writer stated that lie believed a waterway should be allowed for river craft which, when the sweeper now at work in the upper reaches of the Avon had completed its work, would be able to travel from New Brighton to the City. For this reason he was of the opinion, that the proposal to leave a clearance of only four feet should be strenuously - opposed. The Mayor said that he thought the people of New Brighton regarded the matter from the point r>" view of what they could afford to spend on the bridge. The interests of New Tl righton and 'Christchurch were identical, and he had no doubt that the two pla"' would be amalgamated long before the bridge was paid for. He thought that the decisior of the New Brighton Borough Ctancil regarding the bridge and the first approval of the City Council was due to lack of thought. He did not think that the question of the depth of water was taken into at all. They knew that the old bridge had outlived its usefulness, and should be replaced. The question was raised later as to .whether a four-feet clearance was sufficient, the -City Council then realising for the first time that the clearance was insufficient. He thought at that, time that the New Brighton Borough Council would agree to a clearance of six feet, but unfortunately this was not acceptable to them. Mr Archer said that if the present wooden bridge wert doubled in width it would meet present requirements, and would cost one-fifth of the amount that it was estimated the new bridge would cost. He hoped that the discussion would proceed on bmdminded lines and in a friendly Bpirit, and that nothing would be said which might cause ill-deling so far as the Borough Council was concerned. He then moved the motion previously mentioned. This was seconded by Mr A. W. Owles (Mayor of New Brighton), who said that he had opposed the proposal to erect a bridge with sucli a low clearance, before the recent election, and was still of the same opinion. To erect a bridge of an ornamental nature such as was proposed, would, in his opinion, be nothing more or less than a calamity to the people of N6w Brighton and Christchurch. He maintained that the sum of £4OOO would enable a bridge to be erected, which would allow navigation to take place. Such a bridge would not be affected by any vibration due to currents, as the river ran slowly. He thought that if the New Brighton Borough Council called for competitive designs for a bridge to cost not more than £4OOO it would get a suitable •design without difficulty. : < V City Engineer's Views. The City Engineer. (Mr A. E. Galbraith) said that an eight feet clearance such as had been suggested was hardly enough for navigation purposes. On the upper reaches of the Thames the minimum clearance insisted on was 9 feet, but even this was too little. As had been pointed out, the present bridge could be widened at a reasonable cost. , A reinforced concrete bridge would mean a more expensive work. The grades and approaches to the bridge were bad and would have to be improved. There was no doubt that if the scheme to widen the bridge with the use of timber were adopted it would prove the more economical. Mr M. J. Miller, a member of the Lyttelton Harbour Board, said that the great question was what would represent a reasonable clearance. He thought that nothing less than 10 feet would suffice. The people of the Borough had done their best to improve it and were not desirous of wasting any money, he was sure. The question was whether the bridge was to be a New Brighton or a Christchurch bridge. If the latter, then the people of Christchurch ought to be prepared to pay a large share towards its cost. The New Brighton ratepayers could not be expected to pay any more than the amount they had sanctioned in the recent loan proposal. The motion was put to the meeting and carried, with four dissentients. Altered Position. Mr W. E. Leadley, a former member of the City Council, said that it would be a pity if the people concerned could not come to a decision without taking the case to the Privy Council. He reminded the Mayor that when the matter of erecting a new bridge was first considered it looked hopeless that the Avon would never be made a navigable river, but now the whole position was changed, as a result of the work being done by the river-sweeper. To his mind it would be a calamity to bottle up the river at Sea View road. Every effort should be made to get the people concerned together to discuss the position again. He would much rather see the money that would be necessary to take the case to the Privy Council spent in New Zealand. It should be realised that if the case went to England and was lost it was the people of New Brighton who would have to foot the bill, and as a ratepayer of the Borough that aspect gave him some concern. He moved: That the following deputation be appointed from the meeting to wait on the New Brighton Borough Council, urging that the signing of the contract to proceed with the erection of the proposed ferro-concrete bridge at New Brighton should be delayed until a further conference of local bodies and other interested organisations has been called to reconsider the question—The Mayor of Christchurch, Messrs E. H. Andrews, J. W. Beanland, G. B. Hunter, P. N. Sharpe, H. G. Livingstone, B. B. Dalley, B. Riley, B. B. Owen, and the mover.

In doing so, he said that it was a mistake to think that the erection of the proposed bridge would be an additional expense to the people of New Brighton. He suggested that the deputation wait on the Works Committee of the New Brighton Council to-night, to discuss the matter. The motion was seconded by Mr R. B. Owen.

Mr J. C. Scott, a member of the New Brighton Borough Council, said that it would be useless to wait on that body until it had been given time to discuss the question. The chairman agreed with this view, being of the opinion that no harm would be done in allowing both the New

Brighton and the City Council time to discuss the question. Mr Owen said- that. New Brighton was - amply served with the present bridge so far as its own needs were concerned, but the trouble arose when thousands went to the Borough from the City, and more trouble would be experienced when the people started to go down the river in«their thousands. In reply to a request that- the contract be not signed until after the conference had been held, Mr Owles said that he would agree to such a course if he had the assurance of the two New Brighton councillors present thaHj they would support him. Mr Scott promised his support. Mr Owles: The resolution will not be signed. This arm (lifting up his right arm) will have rheumatism in It. (Laughter.) Mr Owen said that he did not blame the ex-Mayor of New Brighton or the Minister for Marine for their attitude regarding the bridge, as neither of them had any idea at the time, that the river would ever be made navigable. ■ The Minister had expressed the opinion that the suggestion of a navigable stream struck him as being th-e wild dream of a visionary. Mr Owen added that the success of the river-sweeper had exceeded his . wildest dreams. He thought that within -two years' time the people would want to pass beneath the bridge. The motion was carried without dissent-