THE LOST BRIDGE

Evening Post, Volume CXI, Issue 92, 20 April 1931, Page 5

THE LOST BRIDGE

STOKES VALLEY ACCESS

REPLACEMENT PROPOSAL

A public meeting of residents of Stokes Valley, called by the Stokes Valley Progressive Association, was held on Saturday night to consider a proposal foi% the ■ reconstruction of the Manor Park bridge, which was washed away by the flood on Good Friday. The bridge was erected by Mr. W. H. George and operated as a. toll bridge, giving access from the Main Hutt road to the Haywards railway station and Manor Park. A large portion of Mr. George's interests has been acquired since by the Hutt Valley Development Company. The following letter from the secretary, of the company to the Progressive Association explained the position and the company's proposal: — "Many inquiries being made by residents in the district as to whether, tha Hutfc Valley Development Company; were going to replace the bridge recently wrecked on Good Friday las£J I am sorry to inform you that the company cannot face the heavy cost in* volved in reconstruction. The bridge originally cost over £2000. The insurance on it was for £700 only, thus involving the company in a loss of nearly £.1300. To'reconstruct a similar bridge raised 3ft higher than the late bridge would involve an extra expenditure, after using any : material amongst the salvage, of £1100. Under these circumstances the company has decided to demolish the bridge and sell the salvage. Tenders to this effect have been advertised in to-night's "Post." •"Should, however, the public meeting called in your ball for this evening der cide that it would be desirable to petition the council to undertake its- reerection or even of a more substantial one, our company would be glad to facilitate this being done by giving the whole of the private land upon which the bridge, was built, together with all .material at present lying ou the ground. "The value of the anchors and the remaining timber and approaches to the bridge amount to at least £1000, apart from the value of the land,- so the company's contribution to the proposal would be in the vicinity of £1200. "Trusting the meeting will recognisa the generous nature of this proposal." Mr. G-. Combe, chairman of the Progressive Association, was appointed chairman, and Mr. Payne secretary. Mr. W. H. George was present, and with him was Mr. W. T. Neill, F. 5.1., late Surveyor-General of New Zealand, who had prepared a report on the recent flood. ' ~ The offer of the Development Company was road to the meeting. ■ In reply to a question, Mr. George said the bridge which had been destroyed had not been passed by the Government, as there was no need, it being a private bridge, but the plans had been submitted to the Public Works Department. Mr. Adams' asked if the company, would be prepared to hand over the amount received from the insurance firm to the Hutt Oounty, as well as the salvaged portions. This would be good business for the company, .as it would give them a bridge, and would same the annual loss which Mr. George had stated was sustained by the company. Mr. George said he could hold out no hope of the company doing this,.as now that access by the Western Hutt road had been improved, arid there being now, owing to the depression, no demand for the sections held by the company in Stokes Valley, the company, had no need for the bridge. . ~ . Mr. De Laney said the. bridge would be missed, but the Hutt County and the Government were the parties which should erect a new one. He could not see the residents forming themselves into a special rating area to replace the old bridge. Mr. Neill apologised for the absence of Mr. W. Sladden, who had informed him fiat a bridge to carry 12 tons could be built, three feet higher than the old one, for £2000. Mr. De Laney said that the extension; of the eastern Tailway was still pror jected, and probably the Eailway Department would then provide a bridge to give access to Haywards. Mr. Hawthorn moved that the Hutt County Council be requested to take steps to erect a bridge, and that the cost should be apportioned among the local bodies and Government Departments concerned. Mr. Adams ;moved as -an amendment that the company be asked'to hand over to the county the amount of the insurance. Ultimately this was made a separate motion, and both this and Mr. Hawthorn's motion were carried. Mr. George again pointed out that the company had now no need of tha bridge, but that Stokes Valley residents needed immediate access to the railway, and Haywards people wanted to-jpurney by road to Upper Hutt: The offer of the, company was, he considered, a generous one, and he wished tha meeting to understand that the company could go no further. Mr. Hawthorn doubted if the county, would use any of the material salvaged. Present Stokes Valley residents wero not greatly affected, but the prospective owners of the small sections in th» -ompany's subdivision would mostly 1j» Wellington's workers, who would nee£ »ailway access. . . Mr. Williamson considered that Mr. George's offer should have been accepted, as the extra rate would not. have been as large as the toll charged for the bridge. ■ On the motion of Mr. Williamson, the following committee was set up to meet the Hutfc County Council and to further the object of Mr. Hawthorn's motions, Messrs. Adams, De Laney, Hawthorn* Howel!, Huse, and "Williamson.

An advertisement in this issue in* vites tenders, closing on 25th April* for,the salvaging of the Manor Park bridge.