SOUTH ROAD.

Press, Volume LXIV, Issue 19480, 29 November 1928, Page 10

SOUTH ROAD.

HIGHWAYS BOARD AND COUNTY. PAPARUA'S OFFER* NOT ACCEPTED. The offer made by the Paparua County Council in connexion with the tender accepted by the Highways Board for the reconstruction of the part of the Main South road (ChristchurchDunedin highway) within the boundary of the county between Templeton and Eolleston has been turned down by the Highways Board. The offer made by the Paparua County Council to the Board was contained in the following resolution, arrived at by a special meeting of the County Council on the 12th inst.: —

"That this Council agrees to contribute £IOOO per mile to the TempletonKolleston contract, the reduction of £250 per mile from the Highways Board's proposal being on account of the extra cost to which the Council, under protest, was committed in respect of the Sockburn-Templeton contract. That the payment of the TeinpletonRolleston contract be made by three equal instalments, the first of such payments to be made on March 31st, 1931, and the second and third instalments at 12 months and 24 months respectively thereafter. That no interest be chargeable upon any of the moneys due and payable in respect of the Tem-pleton-Rolleston contract." This was agreed to after a motion proposing that the contract should be abandoned altogether had been negatived. Highways Board's Eeply. The Highways Board considered the matter at its meeting on the 22nd, and its reply is contained in the appended letter, dated the 27th inst., a copy of which also has been forwarded to the Canterbury Progress League, which, discussed the matter on the 7th inst. The letter is as follows: — "With reference to your letter of November 19th addressed to the Board concerning the paving contracts south of Christchurch, so many contradictory statements have appeared in the Christchurch papers (founded on which incorrect information articles of such a nature as to leave an entirely Wrong impression in the public mind haye appeared) that the Board thinks it necessary to set out the position as it appears on the official documents, '"1. On May 12th your Council wrote as under:—' Your letter of May 11th to hand re paving on main highways adjacent to Christchurch, for which I thank you. In reply I am directed to state that my Council is ready to procoed immediately with the paving of four miles on the Christchurch-Dunedin road, Sockburn to Templeton. I am directed to ask the Board to take charge of the work, call for alternative tenders in concrete or bitumen, and generally carry out the work. My Council propose paying for their proportion of the cost of the above out of revenue. My Council also wish to do at least one mile of paving on the Christchurch-Akaroa road, commencing at the Halswell boundary. This rdad is not in the Canterbury Progress League's Highways Committee's first year's paving programme, but is in the following year's work. My Council would, however, only consider this road provided the subsidy is £3 for £l. The balance of this road, a distance of three miles, would be done at a subsequent date unless the Board can finance over a period of years the whole work, together with any further work on the Main South road (Christchurch-Dune-din). Re Upper Riccarton-Kumara highway: Upper Riccarton-Russley road section. This road is a boundary road between the Waimairi and Paparua Counties, and my Council will again approach the Waimairi County Council and ascertain what their intentions are in the matter.'

"On June 19th this request was repeated and extended to cover the whole length from Sockburn to Rolleston. "2. It will be seen from this that in asking the Board to carry out the work no conditions were made by your Council other than that alternative tenders should be called f and the letter certainly gives no ground for anticipation that you expected to have any consultation of the actual details of the work to be done by the Board. For instance, the question of the Board asking your Council which tender you thought the Board should accept was never raised. However, when the alternative tenders came in, such an important issue was involved that the Board thought it desirable to submit the matter to your Council, at the same time indicating its own idea of the most economical tender to accept. Your Council did not agree with the Board's recommendation and passed the following resolution:—

"That this Council is so well satisfied with the bituminous paving laid two years ago by British Pavements, Ltd., from Church corner to Sockburn junction, that they recommend the Main Highways Board to accept the tender of British Pavements, Ltd., for the sum of £23,572."

"It is evident from this that the question of keeping the cost of the worK down to the minimum did not enter into your Council's consideration, and as for vour endeavouring to keep the work down to £SOOO per mile, you actually recommended the Board to accept a tender which was not the lowest, and which was within £7 of £6OOO per mile.

"The Board, however, in the absence of any technical or other reasons from your Council for the acceptance of the tender it recommended, and being in possession of technical reports by the best authorities of which it has cognisance decided to adhere to the recommendation which it had already put to your Council, and which only amounted in the case of your Council to a further payment of £348, or under £IOO Pe < r< When a deputation from your Council at a later date met the Board, the ambers of that deputation left the rmpresaTon in the minds of the Board rnpmhers all of whom but one were preST £t the tender accepted by the Rnard represented the best value. B "Coming now to the second ength of road, from Templeton to Rolleston. The technical reasons for the adoption of concrete were very much stronger ! this length than on the other length, °*d : the Board knowing of no reason 0 the contrary (and no reason has ince been brought forward) decided, after receipt of tenders, to continue he o'nstructio'n in concrete and accepted the lowest tender for this class 01 W "When your Council later stated * thnv were unable to finance this *nS at a greater cost than £SOOO per r °, ?iL Rmrd agreed to accept from mil %l n£4up to the value of £SOOO, >'Z to pay fr P om the Board's funds and to jay 0Q mile< ♦wfho Board considers your Council that ho bob Ta your should P a > *"'/* for the first contract, recommendations for as per your resoi« h and your stat«ne»ttt*t , finance £oooo per. " f £10,993, len ?l h V P the amoun if money involved 80 that whafThe Board asks your ConnbstlSeßpJ bß i? wtat you actually ex-