BRIDGES COMMISSION

Evening Post, Volume CII, Issue 36, 11 August 1921, Page 3

BRIDGES COMMISSION

HUTT COUNTY REQUIREMENTS

A Commission, neb up by the GovernorGeneral under section 119 of the Publio Works Act]' 1908, to inquire into the question of rebuilding three bridges— Pakuratahi, Stokes's Valley, and Miller's Creek—on the Main East-road', in the Hutt County, and whether 6tich reconstruction should, be at the expense of the various local bodies cited, was opened at the offices of the Hutt County Council yesterday. Mr. E. W. Holmes, late Engineer-in-Ohdef, was appointed Commissioner for the hearing. Th« local bodies were represented by Messrs. A. de B. Brandon (Hutt County), J O'Shea (Wellington City), H. Buddie(Eastbourne), R. C. Kirk (Petone), J. Mitchell (Lower Hutt), 0. C, Mazengarb (Upper Hutt), and H. Shortt (Eastbourne). Others present included Messrs. W. H. Moirton (City Engineer), H. F. Toogood (consulting engineer of the Hutt County), J. Cmdby (Hutt County inspector), A. Cowie (engineer, Petone), J. F. Eames (Town Clerk, Lower Hutt), S. B. Dodge (General Manager, Eastbourne), and Commissioners T. Quinn and L. Daroux (Upper Hutt). The estimated costs of constructing new bridges were stated to be:—Pakuratahi, £3801; Stokes's Valley, £2100; and Miller's Creek (culvert), £400. The Government would pay £1 for £l subsidy on the actual costs of the works, and the Hutt County Council suggested that the balance of capital expenditure should be found by the imposition of the following levies:—Wellington City Council, 40 per cent.; Hutt County Council, 30 per cent.; Petone Borough Council, 10 per cent.; Lower Hutt Borough Council, 10 per cent.; Eastbourne Borough Council, 5 per cent.; and Upper Hutt Town Board, 5 per cent. Mr. A. de B. Brandon opened, the case for the Hutt County, and explained that the road was the great eastern, an 3, therefore, of particular importance to Wellington City and other local bodies. It was difficult to establish a basis on •which to idetermine the respective contributions. He dealt with the history of the county, and the question of maintenance of roads, giving reasons for the citation of other bodies. The Wairarapa local bodies had not been cited because Ehey had their own portion of the road to look after. The main traffic over the Pakurafiihi bridge was, he contended, mostly from Wellington; Stokes' 3 Valley bridge carried a. large amount of traffic, and was of greater value to the city than to the county; but Miller's Creek bridge had more domestic value. It was suggested that the Stokes's Valley bridge be removed to a different position, and to do so the cost would be approximately £1000, but the estimated amount did not cover compensation for land taken, the closing of the old road, and the alteration of the present road frontages. Councillor J. Barclay, Chairman of the Hutt Cotinty Council, save evidence to the effect that the county contributed £1000 per annum towards the upkeep of the main Hutt road between Wellington and Petone, and 12 per cent, towards that of the Hutt bridge. The county had 44 miles of roads to maintain, which ran through land of poor quality/and of low rateable value. The local bodies had left ■ the Hutt County to maintain the arterial roads, and if the Pakuratahi bridge fell down it would not be the ratepayers of the Hutt county who would complain, but Wellington. Cross-examined, Mr. Barclay said that the county rate wae l|d on the capital value of land, and was higher than the average rate imposed by the majority of counties. ' The aggregate loans of the connty would not exceed ±L.Z,000. He was prepared to admit that Wairarapa would/derive a great.benefit from a new bridge over the Pakuratahi, but the city would also benefit. , Mt. Kirk explained that the County Council did net contribute to the upkeep of the Hutt road through. Petone. Evidence was also given by Mr. Toogood, who stated that he had prepared plans and specaficatians of the bridges. The reconatrudjion of tine bridged mentioned -wae necessary, as the Minister~of Public Works had totally condemned the Pakuratahi and Stokes's. Valley bridges. In addition <to the estimated cost of the proposed bridge at Pakurataihij an additional amount (set down at &150) would have to bo allowed for training the river, as it was. or would in the future, make inroads into the flank of the bridge if not protected. The work was a national one, and on a population basis Wellington City should provide per cent., and the Hutt County's proportion would be 3.S per cent., and on a capital valuation 5.7 per cent. , Mr. Shortt explained that the bridges referred to were of no benefit .to Eastbourne. The commission adjourned until Friday week, in order to enable the local bodies interested, to consider tiie position. ,