BRIDGE EXTENSION AT GREY HOSPITAL: WHO IS TO PAY?

Greymouth Evening Star, 13 August 1947, Page 3

BRIDGE EXTENSION AT GREY HOSPITAL: WHO IS TO PAY?

Though an “outrigger” attachment has been provided for pedestrians on the traffic overhead bridge leading to the Grey Hospital groimds, some doubt still exists as 'to where the money for the work is to come from. This position was reported to last evening’s meeting of the Hospital Board. There were critical comments on the new addition. The board received a letter from the Public Works Department, which requested it to place the full facts in connection with the bridge before the Health Department which would then give consideration to the provision of a grant for the work. Reviewing the history of the addition to the bridge, the department stated that an original request by the Progress' League had been refused, but on visiting Greymouth in April, the Minister of Railways, Mr Semple, had directed that the work be carried out as a charge against the railways or public works account.

No Account

“Although the Railway Department has done the work it has no legitimate account to charge it to,” continued the letter,” and it is awaiting a decision as to who is to pay for it.” It was indicated that it was thought that the Greyhiouth Borough Council should contribute towards the cost and that this body had tentatively agreed to do this, providing that the hospital board paid a like amount — £5O. It had been subsequently suggested by the head office of the P.W.D. however, that the Health Department should bear the cost, £l4O, and it was now suggested that the board apply to this department for a grant of £l4O to cover the cost of the footway, at the same time explaining the board’s financial position and the fact, that the work was authorised by the Minister.

“This letter is quite extraordinary,” commented the secretary-manager, Mr W. H. J. Watson.

“It’s not much of a job either,” said Mrs D. M. Parfitt referring to the bridge.

Work Criticised

The secretary pointed out to members that the addition for pedestrians had oeen provided on the south side of the bridge, whereas the majority of visitors who came from the northern area, had to cross the traffic lane before ascending the bridge, and again on the other side and this was repeated when the visitors were leaving the grounds. The provision of this section on the southern side, however, was mentioned and approved by the board prior to the commencement of the work, “so we have no kick coming there,” he added.

Both the borough engineer, Mr A. J. Fairmaid, and himself (the secretary) considered however, that there should be some sort of hand-railing between the new footwalk section and the traffic lane, continued Mr Watson. At present, people at night were likely to stumble on the railway line (the only dividing line) and into the traffic lane. The Public Works Department was advised of this position but considered that the work was not necessary. “If an accident occurs there the board knows now that the appropriate authorities have been warned,” said Mr Watson. “I think the bridge is worse now than it was before. It is a real danger,” said Mrs Parfitt.

It was decided to advise the department that the Hospital Board would not consider contributing more than the agreed .sum of £5O towards the cost of the bridge, and that renewed representations be made to the proper authorities for the provision of a hand-rail.