THE EMBANKMENT QUESTION

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume II, Issue 302, 26 November 1912, Page 3

THE EMBANKMENT QUESTION

FURTHER DISCUSSED BY ! LOCAL BODIES. 1 I THE RIVER BOARD TURNS UP. ! A meeting •*. k place yesterdaj ■ t;!i ;-i ii'-on of delegates from local i Bonies interested, to further discus: i tlm question of the railway embank mrnt. .'dr. T. Chamber: (el.airman of th- Countx Council piesided ami there were present Messrs. E.li<on. Claik. Jull. Niven McGrath. Brown. Crosse. Kennedy Lane and Hon. J. D. Ormot’d. In opening the discussion thi i Chairman pointed out that while thi I County Council desired the shortes< loute. they were quite prepared t< stand by the present plans. | I Mr. Brown said the point was that I if the bridge did not end in the | borough th? Napier Borough Conn l ,:1 would pot be railed upon to pa.* : so much towards its construction. The chairman pointed out that tin ! cost would be decided by commission. Boroughs f’-eqtientlv laid t< contribute to bridges outside theit boundaries. Mr. J.tl; said th- Ilatbour Boari wer ■ satisfied with the prociamatioi I plans. MR. ORMOND OBJECTS. I Mr. Ormond said that it appearer ’to I i:u as if the embankment wai Being placed to suit the inner bar | hoar proposals and he thought tin Ipt op! - should Lt' consulted us ti ) where the embankment should go Ji- moved:- 'That considering tin ! importance of 11 ■ questions invo.v i ed in the settlement of the positioi ■ of the railway embankment acres: ! the inner harbour, ample notice sl-o-.dd be given for the eonsideratioi I of those questions by meetings of the i local bodies interested and that th< ; opinion of the people of tliw dis I trict should, be obtained.'’ 1 Mr. Brown seconded the motion I He thought they should have mor* I time for consideration. The dele j '.rates hail no power to act in tlie mat ; ter. He did net full in with the sag i gestion that one local body sho-.de I act for all in th.e matter. Each loca i body should Have its own delegate a: ) each had their own interests to look ' after.

Th? chairman pointed out that hi did not suggest that they should de so now, but the delegates should report io their different local bodie: and if the plans were agreed tt they should leave it to one body t< carry on negotiations with the Go ver:::r.ent.

j Mr. Brown held to his point tha- I i they should all take part in th< i transactions. j Mr. Jull said he was glad the this ! cussion had arisen though he wa: : ■ afraid it would not lead to anything. But it served to show the wisdom o. th? Harbour Board making its plan: plainer. He knew nothing of an,'. : plan except tljat which Air. Holme: \ had placed before them. Whei > Messrs. Cullen and Keele were her. ! tl Minister said it. was desirable | that they should consult with the | department and that consultation j took place. A plan was then agreeii | upon and he knew nothing of c.nv ) | other. Mr. Ormond was asking then. ■ jto determine the inner harbour; question on a side issue by suggest- : I ing they should take a poll as tc I > j where th? bridge should go. Thi board had come to a decision an< would not allow any restriction o its area and he took it that he spoke j with almost the unanimous voice o. j the board. If the requirements o: ■ | the board meant that the embank I ment had to be put further back and I additional cost was involved the : I board would no doubt contribute | but he made it plain that the board j would not agree to atty interference ’ with the harbour. In reply to Mr. Ormond he said 1 that the people would have to be - consulted even at the election of the; ! nt w board. ; I Mr. Brown: What's the us? of thif ; meeting then. I Mr. Ju 11 held it would do good ii ■ | it only showed that it was no good , It o meet at all. As to the chairman’s - j suggestion to appoint one body tc ) act. h - * pointed out that it was only a ■ ; mat.?r of negotiation. If Mr. OrI mond's suggestion was carried out ; I they would have neither railway. l I harbour or bridge.

d; SOME DISAGREEMENT. j i Mr. Clark then raised the question K ' of Mr. (Jnnoau’s standing at the ! meeting, and pointed out that when s a.-ktd in the first place to attend ! the conference the River Board de-, ■Minined to send a delegate. Ihe chairman said that in the first; _ -place Mr. Ormond had refused to n * 'attend. Mr. Ormond was present by te' imitation that day. and strictly ■ 1 speaking he had no light to move' the resolution. h j Mr. Ormond '-.ai lhe had received ’a notice of the meeting, which he ‘ read. He then left the room to . i attend the meeting of the River,' I Board. Mr. Clark pointed out that the ! County Council was compelled to C I rebuild the bridge, and it would be ' n 1 best for them to resume negotiations . ( with the Government and report,;' ’iand he moved an amendment which . I■the chairman held should come up in : " i the form of a separate motion. ; In reply, to Mr. Lane, the chair- ‘ i.nn •-.■lid the committee was ap- j' , pomttd to negotiate with the Pub.ic Itto.k, Department regarding the „ I !■>•.(!::•• and railway. I Mr. Lane said the positi.m was ‘ ' that the delegates were called to- ( jgethcr to discuss the site of the cm- I i omkment. The River Board had * ’ declined to appoint a delegate. There was no squabble, no differidice of opinion. The River Bca-d i representative was not there and ! • Mr. Brown was not there. The re- | presentatives cf the local bodies had ; all agreed. Now the chairman of f , the Liver Beard has come to the o •'meeting, and it was very strange. P The plan Mr. Ormond talked cf was ;l '.referred to the Ward Government for explanation only. It was not ; the plan agreed to by Mr. Holmes. v . . Wi at the Government wanted to p t knew was what they intended to h >ipay. Other local bodies could not r h dictate to an elected board as to a 'where it should put its harbour. ~ i Mr. McGrath “-aid Mr. Ormond's motion was what might have been

( expected. The River Board hud l.a < I .lotiee of the conference, and he had : peken to Air, Ormond on the sub- [ ject, and the* reply lie got was that .he River Board was not interested, fhe object of the committee was to get all the information possible and xork together. They had Messrs. | Julien and Keele’s report and the i loard had di cided iipcn the con j ,traction of an inner harbour. Th* ward had now a tic finite policy. Sc 'ar as the delegates were concern ■ ‘d. he held they had done good vork. He agreed with Mr. Brown, hat each local body should be re ; presented :n negotiations otherwise j hey might go on for ever. j Mr. Crosse, who seconded Mr. ; Ormond’s motion, said the position .vas now different to when the conj erence was first called. They knew ■ lothing of the harbour then. The i board was departing from the tradi ; ions of the outer harbour and pro I losing to build a new one. and the (ratepayers must be consulted. The ! liver Benard must consider rive: iiversion—it * was an impmtam j »ody. If they had an expression o; : ipinion from the people it would d* I iway with opposition. MOTION DEFEATED. 1 Th.e motion was then put and lost. Jessrs. Briiiin and Grosse votee’ ’Aye" r.rd Messrs. Lane, McGiatl.. Niven, Jull, Clark, Ellison and th* I I’b.airinan "No.’’ z FINAL DECISION. j A long discussion then followed, i tnd finally Mr. McGrath move* i hat the River Board be again askec | o send delegates, as their interest; | were involved. | Mr. Lane seconded, and the mo ion was carried. Further meetings will be held i. ’ound necessary.