NEW HUTT BRIDGE

Evening Post, Volume CXIII, Issue 64, 17 March 1927, Page 10

NEW HUTT BRIDGE

LOCAL BODIES CONFER

LARGER SUBSIDY WANTED

The Lower Hutt Borough Council proposes to erect a new bridge over the Hutt River to replace the present bridge, which it is considered has outlived its usefulness. The new bridge will Bpan the river in a line with Railway avenue a short distance below the site of .the present structure. The estimated cost is £26,000, of which the Public Works Department has agreed to pay £5000, and tho Lower Hutt Borough Council has requested other local bodies to contribute as follows: Wellington City, 40 per cent.; Hutt County, 12 per cent.; Petone, 5 per cent.; and Upper Hutt Borough 3 per cent., Lower Hutt itself bearing 40 per cent.

The bodies asked to contribute having objected to the proportion allocated, the Mayor of Lower Hutt convened a meeting of representatives of the councils concerned to try to arrive at an agreement without having recourse to a Commission. The meeting was held at Lower Hutt last evening, and was attended by Messrs. W. T. Strand (Mayor), H. G. Teagle, A. J. Hobbs, A. M'Bain, E. P. Bunny (borough solicitor), B. S. Knox (Town Clerk), and A. G. Bush (engineer), representing Lower Hutt; Messrs. H. D. Bennett and J. O'Shea (City Solicitor), Wellington; Mr, W. V. Dyer, Hutt County; Messrs. J. W. M'Ewan, A. Scholeficld, and W. V. Sturman (Town Clerk), Pctone; and Messrs. A. J. M'Curdy (Mayor), H. B. Lodge, and W. Grieg, Upper Hutt. Mr. W. T. Strand, who presided, said that he hoped the matter would be settled J without recourse to a Commission, as never before had the feeling between the various local bodies been so good as it was at the present time. IS TIME OPPORTUNE? Mr. Bennett said that the general aspects which appealed to him were: Was the time opportune to spend £26,000? Was the bridge absolutely necessary?. And was the Government contributing enough, having in mind the national motor funds at its disposal for main highways? There was now no such thing as local traffic, it was largely through traffic, and it was not the duty of local bodies to find funds for through traffic. The proportion offered by the Government—£sooo—was totally inadequate. Mr. Strand said that, apart from the financial side, there was no time so opportune as the present for doing the work, as it would absorb many of the unemployed. There was urgent need of the bridge. The •! difficulty of getting, more'from the Government was that it did not contribute where' the borough was larger than 6000 inhabitants. ' ■ Mr. O'Shea stated, that were the bridge within the county the Government would pay £ for £. Why should the accident of its being in the Lower Hutt borough prevent the Government from contributing? , Mr. Dyer said that the Hutt county viewed the request with great concern, and members were divided on the point of the necessity of the bridge. Mr. Strand said that what benefited Lower Hutt must benefit the Hutt County, or at least the portions contiguous thereto. Mr. M'Curdy said the bulk of the Upper Hutt traffic was served by rail, and if a tally was made he felt sure the Upper Hutt traffic would be only 1 per cent, and Wellington city over 60 per cent. He did not think much opposition would be raised to the proportions fixed by Lower Hutt. Mr. M'Ewan questioned the need for the new bridge, and endorsed the remarks of Mr. Bennett relative to getting a larger contribution from the Government. _ DEPUTATION TO GOVERNMENT. Mr. Bennett then moved, and it was decided unanimously, that a deputation be arranged to wait on the Government and ask for a £ for £ subsidy. No decision regarding the proportions each should pay was arrived at, but it is not anticipated that after the reply of the Government is received any difficulty will be experienced in arriving at an amicable settlement. After supper, provided by the Lower Hutt Council, the conference went into committee to discuss other matters of joint interest.