CATCHMENT BOARD DISCUSSES LENGTH OF BRIDGE

Press, Volume CII, Issue 30177, 8 July 1963, Page 17

CATCHMENT BOARD DISCUSSES LENGTH OF BRIDGE

The length at the bridge to be built over the Waimakariri river as part of the proposed northern outlet plan was discussed at the monthly meeting of the North Canterbury Catchment Board. Mr A. T. Bell, chairman of the rivers control and drainage committee, said the commutree recommended that the proposals for bridging the Waimakariri as discussed with the Ministry of Works be referred back to the department, with a request that the bridge be constructed from stopbank to stopbank. Mr Bell said new plans of the proposed style of construction had been submitted to the board by the ministry. He felt that some members at the board thought the original proposal was for the bridge to cover from stopbank to stopbank. This was not so. The abv* - ?nts of the bridge were to be inside the stopbanks with an embankment at each end

It was proposed to alter the design of the bridge and to lengthen it, but it sill would not go from stopbank to stopbank, said Mr Bell. The chief engineer of the board (Mr H M. Reid) said that the new bridge was to have been 1320 ft long, which would have reached to the ends of the spur groins on each side of the river. These groins extend 400 ft from the stopbank. The ministry found that by using steel beams 80ft long costs could be reduced. It was now proposed to use 17 80ft spans.

making a total length of 1360 ft. Mr Reid said that the pres ent bridge had 28 40ft spans, and the reduction in spans would give 113 ft exitra waterway. The piers would be circular, making it impossible for material to build up around them He said the extra length was entirely unnecessary. The ministry envisaged building two bridges, each with three lanes, said Mr Reid. The second bridge would be built immediately downstream of the firs’ when traffic conditions warranted it. “We can’t afford to make mistakes today,” said Mr F L. Wright. “I've got enough information to prove the whole length of the bridge is necessary.” “I don’t know any subject that has caused as much interest as this bridge.” said Mr J. M. Pickering. “Mr Reid has assured us this proposed design is perfectly safe. I accept this, but I think it would be very much safer if lengthened. It is the most vi‘a’ bridge in North Canterbury.” Dr. W. R. Holmes said that some members of the board, seemed to have no faith or confidence in their own staff or the ministry to decide the amount of water that could go under a bridge. He said it could cost at least £50,000 to increase the length, and he would not support the proposed motion.

Professor G. Jobber ns moved that the motion not be put until there had been a discussion on the matter

with the District Commissioner of Works at the next meeting. This motion was carried. A motion that the board should co-operate in civil defence matters was accepted on the understanding that, if flooding was involved, the board’s resources must be applied to that work. A letter from the Civil Defence Officer (Mr J. Leggat) was read asking if the board’s services would be available The chairman (Mr R. M. D. Johnson) said the board’s first function was to deal with water.

The board adopted a proposal to close paper roads within the boundaries of a scheme to build stopbanks covering an area of about 40 acres on both banks of the Waimakartri river downstream from the main road bridge. It was decided to advise the Kainga Settlers’ Association that the board did not approve the suggestion that the existing children’s playground next to the tennis court should be made available as a building site lit was against the board's policy to make any more sites available. Permission was granted to the Christchurch Water Sports Club t hold a water ski-ing display on the Waimakariri river opposite the Stewart's Gully Yacht Club area as a trial on one occasion

Mr Bell said the board did not approve of the stopbank being used as a grandstand, as a lot of damage could be caused. He also said the club would have to negotiate with the board’s tenant of adjoining property for access to the area.