HIGHWAYS COUNCIL

Greymouth Evening Star, 13 September 1924, Page 2

HIGHWAYS COUNCIL

NO. 12 DISTRICT’S AFFAIRS.

A meeting of the Council of No. 12 District of the Main Highways Board took place last evening. Mr H. M Atkinson, Resident Engineer of the Public Works Department, presided, and there were also present Messrs L. Bell (Inangahua), D. Archer (Buller) and J. Higgins (Grey). On Mr Higgins’s motion, . Mr Watkinson was appointed chairman m succession to Mr J. D. Gillies, late Resident Engineer. It was also decided to place on record the Council s apreciation of the good ’work performed by the first chairman. A letter was received from the En-gineer-in-Charge of the Public Works Department, the Department’s appreciation of the work Mr Gillies had done in connection with the Main Highways Board. Advice was received that the Grey County Council’s claim for £537 for maintenance had been met by the Department. The Chairman remarked that the Inangahua County Council’s claim had also been recognised. A question was asked by Mr Bell as to whether in the event of the estimate of expenditure in the Inangahua County being exceeded, the Board would increase the amount.

The Chairman replied that the local bodies were required to find an amount equal to the average expenditure for the past three years. In the case of the Inangahua County, only £36 would have, to be found. A letter was received from the Chairman of the Main Highways Board stating that it was in favour of the same rate of wages as those p’aid by the local bodies in the past being maintained, except where the wages exceeded the rates stipulated by the Arbitration Court Award. The estimate of the Council as to the cost of maintenance of roads, £53,607, was reduced by the Board to £43,600. ’The Council considered the Board’s substituted .schedule, and it was noticed that the Board left £2,800 for tar-sealing in the Grey County. Mr Higgins stated that it was more important to keep up the bridges in the Grey County and.. other West Coast counties.

It was decided to alter the schedule so that of the £2,800 set .aside for tarsealing in the Grey County, £2,500 be allocated for the Ahaura Bridge and £750 for the Nelson Creek bridge, and that sufficient be allocated from the amount of £2,400 set aside for the same purpose in the Westland County to provide for .the bridges between Kumara and Ross.

A letter was received from the Main Highways Board stating that it had decided to refuse the application of the Hokitika Borough for assistance in the maintenance of that part of the main highway passing through the borough, on the grounds that it was mainly used for local traffic. It was agreed, however, to assist the Kumara Borough Council to the extent of £52 per mile per annum. Assistance to the Brunner Council was refused, and the Westport Borough Council’s applica, tion has not yet been considered.

On the motion of Mr Higgins, it was decided that the Council protest against the Board’s refusal to assist the Brunner Council, it being pointed out that 90 per cent, of the traffic using the portion of the main highway that passed through the borough was foreign traffic. It was in the «ami. position as Kumara. The Board iff also asked to review its decision regarding the Hokitika Borough, and the Council decided to support the application of the Westport Borough. The application. of the Ross Borough for similar consideration was also recommended.

Mr Higgins mentioned that there was a proposal by the Main Highways Board to license heavy traffic on >a uniform scale, and he asked the Chairman to get copies printed and handed to the members.

Mr Archer, speaking of the Motor Vehicles Bill, suggested that, the Council should telegraph to the Board protesting against the Bill on _the grounds of its interference with local bodies’ revenue..

The Chairman said that the Council had nothing to do with the matter as a council. The Bill was intended to provide funds for main highways, and any objections which members might have was a matter for themselves individually.