TARAMAKAU BRIDGE

Greymouth Evening Star, 23 September 1943, Page 3

TARAMAKAU BRIDGE

INQUIRY TERMINATED

Mr. G. G. Chisholm. S.M., who was appointed Commissioner to hear evidence to enable a policy to be I'onnuluted regarding the future control and maintenance of the bridge across the Taramakau River, between Kumara and Greenstone, concluded the sitting yesterday afternoon when counsel had made lengthy submissions. He intimated that after giving the evidence consideration he would present a report to the Government. Mr. F. A. Kitchingharn appeared for the Kumara Borough Council, Mr. W. D. Taylor for the Grey County Council, Mr. M. B. James for the Westland County Council, and 'Mr. E. F. Evans for the Main Highways Board. At the afternoon session, John Higgins, Engineer to the Grey County Council, adding to his evidence, said the Taramakau Settlement would be greatly handicapped without the bridge. Without it Kumara would lose its trade with the settlement, in addition to which it afforded the only economical means of bringing out cream.

Mr. Evans did not call witnesses but put in a letter by the secretary of the Taramakau Farmers’ Union pressing for the erection of the spans when they were washed away. Mr. Taylor submitted that there was no justification for changing the present incidence in the cost of maintaining the bridge. If it had been of benefit to Kumara when it was built it was difficult to say why it .should not be of use to it now. In proving their own decline they had proved a like decline in the surrounding area of Grey County. He submitted that the capital value of Kumara was preserved to a large extent by the bridge. It was a fail' inference that the bulk of the £lO,OOO earned yearly by the 35 men living in Kumara and working across the bridge was spent in Kumara. A sum of £261 was spent by the Borough Council in administrative charges, and total rates levied were £370. There was no justification, he claimed for the continued existence of the Borough as an independent entity. It should become a part of Westland County, and then a normal basis of contribution of 50/50 between the two counties might be applied. The loss of the bridge' would be more serious to the Borough than to either of the counties. The tally figures showed, that this section of the 'Grey County was, really a suburb and essential to Kumara. Mr. James said that while the local authorities were constituted as at present Westland County had little interest in the dispute. The only revenue derived by the County from the bridge was a small part of heavy traffic fees. There would be no necessity to cross the bridge to dredge the portion of the Taramakau mining claim in Westland County.

COST TO BOARD 1 i Mr, Evans referred to the large ■part of the Highways Board in assisting local bodies in the upkeep of I highways. Of their total reading system 26 per cent, in Grey County, 39 per cent, in Westland County, and 44 per cent, in Kumara Borough were made up of State and Main Highways on the maintenance of which the Board spent £37,806 annually. This did not include improvement work. On the maintenance of these highways the local bodies spent £3,939. Expenditure in 1942-43 on the maintenance of the Kumara-Mitchells highway was £1293/0/10, to a contribution by the Bbrough of £9/7/3 and bv the Grey County of £421 13/2. This was apart from the maintenance of the bridge. The Board’s contribution was reasonable and lib- ' eral and it would not regard favourably any request for more than a

■three to one subsidy. It considered control of the bridge should be vested in either the Grey County or itself. The whole cost of State highways was borne by it, and the declaration of State highways had saved the three local bodies concerned £7,348 yearly which they would have paid if only a 3 to 1 subsidy had applied to State highways. Kumara Borough had also been saved at least £l5O yearly on the maintenance of the State highway through the township. No evidence had been given that the bridge or the road should be made the responsibility of the State. However, the Board was generous in its contributions to bridge renewals and he thought it would be prepared to increase the usual subsidy for a job of this sort. A rough estimate had been made that about £2OOO would be required to put the bridge into serviceable order for about ten years. Mr. Kitchingharn said he took exception to the statement that Kumara was responsible for the construction of the bridge and was now trying to slip out of its responsibility. There was no evidence as to who was responsible, but probably the diggers of Greenstone had pressed for it. Regarding sawmill workers living in Kumara, they lived there not because they liked it, but because there happened to be houses there. The rates collected were low because of low valuations. Referring to the bridge traffic, he said that the loads were too heavy. The Forestry Department got a very considerable sum out of the district. He submitted that the men going to work across the river would not be incommoded if the bridge were not there as they could shift out to the mills or get work elsewhere. The application for a loan in connection with the scheme had been turned down only on the ground that Kumara should not be encouraged to increase its loan indebtedness. Reference had been made to £lO,OOO brought into the town in wages, but most of the goods in the town had to be imported into it, and it gained only by the profit arising from the sale. When the bridge was out of use the timber had been taken out via Inchbonnie, and though protests had been made the cutting had gone on and the timber had evidently not been taken out at a loss. Whatever plant there was for loading at Kumara Junction could be installed at Inchbonnie. Kumara was rated at more than twice the rate of Westland County, and at one and three-quar-ters The rate of Grey County. Apart from £l2O heavy traffic fees,-Kumara itself derived no benefits from the bridge which it would not get otherwise from the surrounding district.