Fendalton bridge talk move fails

Press, 17 April 1980, Page 6

Fendalton bridge talk move fails

.A move to have the Wainiairi County Council reconsider an application to build a abridge across, the Wairarapa -Stream at Bradnor Road was defeated last evening;; but the issue is likely ttT.be raised again. ■A special meeting of the council on March 31 narrojvly voted against advice by. the County Solicitor and defeated a motion in favour of. the application, made by Mr R. R. Currie.

-A notice of motion by Cr M. P. Hobby to last evening’s monthly meeting asked that the application, which entails access to a proposed new home from. Bradnor Road, be recommitted for consideration by the council. -Cr Hobby said the special meeting had'failed to give a definite statement declining the application. His motion was intended to “tidy up” the situation.

Cr E. L. Bonisch argued unsuccessfully that the motion was out of order. Minutes showed that Mr Currie had been informed after the special council meeting that a motion in favour, of his application had been lost and there was therefore no need for a further motion, he said. -The motion by Cr Hobby, who had favoured the bridge application at the special meeting, was put and lost, five votes to four.

Three letters from residents in the Bradnor Road area were included on the agenda, but the County Chairman (Mr D. B. Rich) ruled there could be no further discussion on the issue because the motion had been lost.

The letters were in appreciation of the outcome of the special meeting. The residents called for land at the end of Bradnor Road to be protected in future 'and named “Ullrich Reserve,” after a couple who had lived in the area for many years.

Cr Rich refused several times to allow councillors to discuss, the application or the legal consequences of the special meeting’s outcome. Cr Bonisch indicated that he would give notice of motion at the next council meeting to advise Mr Currie that his application was declined and that access to his property be from Glandovey Road only.

Cr H. M. Tait asked whether the next meeting of the council’s finance and bylaws committee could discuss the legal implications. Cr Hobby, who is the committee’s chairman, indicated that could be done.

Conference expense Inclusion of $4OOO in the council’s estimates for host-

ing this year’s South Island Local Bodies’ Association conference’was “in bad taste in the present economic climate,” said Cr W. T. Rice. The money would be part of an estimated $9OOO to be spent on social functions for 140 delegates and 100 partners during the conference in September, to be held at the Hotel Russley.

Cr Rice suggested that the cost of a dine and dance evening, the biggest function, should be charged on those attending as an “optional extra” to the conference registration fee. “I cannot support the principle of ratepayers having to subsidise cocktails, trips for wives, and 250 people for a dine and dance,” he said.

A motion by Cr Rice that the amount placed on the estimate for being host to the conference be substantially reduced was ruled out of order by Mr Rich. The motion was “hardly appropriate,” he said. Mr Rich said such host expenses were usual for such conferences. He gave an assurance that informal social contact between delegates was a ‘most valuable” part of the conference. “In terms of impact on the ratepayer, we are talking about a few cents,” he said.