THE WESTSHORE BRIDGE

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume VI, Issue 266, 26 October 1916, Page 3

THE W ESTSHORE BRIDGE

WHO SHALL PAY" THE COSTCOMMISSION SITS AT NAPIER The Commission set up to inquire into the appointment of the cost ot the Westshore bridge sat at Napier at 10 30 vesterday morning, the UnderSecretarv for Public Works (Mr. XV. S. Short) presiding. Among the representatives present were: Messrs. H. B. • Lusk and XV. C. Spronle (H.B. County Council). A. H. Ferguson (County Clerk), E. H. XVilliams (Hastings Borough Council), P. Purser (Hastings Town Clerk). Currie and J. H. Jo.l ■ chairman Havelock North Town Board). F. Martin (Napier Borough Council). M. Murray (Napier Town Clerk). M. R. Grant and XV. J. Jarvis (Taradale Town Board). XV. L. Newnhmn (Resident Public XX orks Depai tmont engineer), Sinclaii, Siddb-> and Lynch (XVaipawa Count} Count il). INTRO DUCTOR Y R EMA RK S In opening the proceedings. Mr. Short said the H.B. County Cornuil cited the following local bodies, e aiming th? undermentioned pt poortions - Napier Borough, £H. Qn -> or b .2per cent. XVairoa County Council, £3<<6 or 15.11 per cent. _ H.B. County. £9419 or 3/ .6. per cent. The, total cost was set down nt £25,000. which the Hawke’s Bay Countv Council or other local bodies had to find. This amount was subject to a reduction of £5OOO, being the suejeet of a special Government grant towards the work. Tli<‘ order of business would be: — H.B. County, fi'-st, as plaintiffs, would have to prove its case. The Napier Borough, second, as subplaintiffs, having cited the Hastings Borough. the Hnveock North Town Board and the Taradale Town Board. The XVairao County Council, thirdly, and the other bodies. After the above the evidence would lie taken and councils would then replv in inverse order. He thought the Napier Borough should make some definite claim--that was due to the parties cited. OBJ EC TIONS.

I The XVairoa representatives called attention to the fa-'-t that they were not parties tc any original negotiations or ! to the cort.net in any way whatsoever. i Mi. Williams Borough ! Counci.l. submitted that the H-B-I Countv hud not cited Lasting.-* Borough to this inquiry, and that the 1 Act specifically laid down that they ! ilhe Coinity Conned) were the only ; body who could do so, hence t.’.ey were entitled to be discharged. Mr Martin submitted that the Lomj mission had full authority to consider ] who should contribute. I Mr Short said be would reserve tlio | point, but it would be open for himseu ! or the other parties to have the case stated for the opinion of the Supreme iC on rt. , , ‘ Jb- XVidiams contended that it was quite’ clear that the Hawke’s Bav i County was the only body that ronkl I cite parties. , . , . Mr. Short said he thought it best lor ! th? inquiry to go on. thus enabling the I evidence to be obtained which would assist the apportionment ot the cost ! even if Mr. Williams’ point was upheld i f>v the Si orerne Court. The point j raised won. i be reserved. ! Mr. Martin said a tally had been li.ji.-pri of traffic for one we?k over the ' evisfino bridee. but that would not illy - dirate the traffic that would pass oter the new structure. He suggested that I the Commission sliou d adjourn till the 1 new bridge was completed, when a full t'llv could be taken extending over ! m’aiiv weeks. Traffic from the new i bridge would pass on to the laradale ! ro'.uL avoiding the Napier Borough. At Westshore' there were a number of 'workers who came to Napier for their I employment, and it w as suggested that j a terrv service, would be necessary. There was also coal traffic that would go by ferrv. The tally was, he was told, onlv taken from 7 a.m. in the mornings. While the tally was taken the first pile nf the new bridge was driven, and hundreds attended that, and were m-ch-.ded in the tally- He appliecUior fhe I Commission to be adjourned till after the bridge was in use. Jfr. Lusk said the County had nothing hut strenuous opposition from the \apier Borough since the beginning ot operations. The borough declined to appoint a tally clerk, and refused to r.'ce'gnise that the bridge wmuld in any wav benefit the City «f Napier The tally extended over ten days It was true that the line oLtbe bridge would come out a few hunflred yards beyond the Borough of Napier, Aut he did not think that would , a .feet the traffic to and from Napier. It as ! proved hv the tally that residents qt Napier ahd Westshore were the principal ones to pass over the bridge. As a matter of fact, out of 32,000 who passed over the bridge, -S.OOO belonged to the town of Napier. Mr. Short said it would probably he ■ibuut two vears before the embankment was finished. If the Commission was adjourned, it would be the u>. time that he knew of that being don. . until a bridge was completed. I Mr. Lusk said U the adjournment J was granted, the county would hai< to advance a lot of money. Air Martin pointed out tout the picI posed bridge was au exceptional one. and was not simply a case ot w here twi. roads were connected. Mr. Lvneh (Wairoa) said that if an ! adjournment was granted the Napier f Borough Council sliou.d be asked t' ; pav the expenses ot those who , " el ' attending. The Wairoa County, itseii. was prepared to accept the tally. Mr. Lusk said the Napier Borough had not previously objected to the tail\. though they had plenty ot time to do so I had thev wished. i Xlr Short said he would take evioence, and leave the point of objection open. The Napier Borough in asking for an adjournment, was raising a difficulty which could have been obviate-l by the borough taking a tal.y itsen. Xlr. Currie (Havelock North Tow i Board) raised the same objection a-. Mr. XVilliams (Hastings Borough). A similar objection was raised hy Mr. Grant (Taradale Town Board). RESIDENT ENGINEER'S EXTDENCL

XV. L. Newnham. resident engineer, gave a description of th" bridge, which, it was anticipated woufu be finished in two years trom March last. The embankment would be -, miles long, and the bridge 1200 tt The bridge was estimated to cost £49.000. and it was not anticipated that the estimate would be exceeded. To Mr. Lusk: Witness knew as a fact that the Harbour Board was proposing to terminate the embankment at the Hyderabad road, instead ot crossing ihe Taradale road 48 chains down as previously, and terminating at tile Napier power house. It was not a part of the present scheme to construct a road from the power house to the point on the Taradale road where the embankment was to terminate.

To ?»Ir Lynch: Witness considerea it was quite necessary that the old bridge should be removed. A new bridge similar to the old one, and on the same site would cost £20,000 to £25,000. The removal was essential to the embankment and the new bridge.

H.B. COUNTY’S CASE

Mr. Lusk submitted that the mam body to benefit by the new bridge was the Napier Borough. It was the capital town in the district, and was the terminus of the Napier-Taupo and Napier-Wairoa road. Moreover, the bridge would be linking up Napier as the terminus of the East Coast railway, and the town would considerably benefit theieby. The residents of XX 7estshore carried on their business almost entirely in Napier. There was also a considerable timber traffic coming across the bridge, which almost entirely benefitted tho town of Napier. 'Die bridge was not used by the stock of county settlers, and the traffic was not what might be termed county traffic. So far as the county was concerned, the only advantage derived was to the Petane riding. The only other riding to derive any real advantage was the Mohaka riding. He contended that this bridge, in effect, was a boundary bridge between Napier and the Petane and Mohaka ridings. As a fact, the bridge would join the borough with the Petane riding. He submitted, as an argument, that the Napier Borough should pay one ha.f, and the Petane portion of the county and Mohaka riding the other half. If the valuation of the Napier Borough and the districts above stated were taken as a basis for payment, then tho former would have to pay an overwhelming sum. He considered the county' had been most fair in this matter. Taking an eight-mile radius, the Napier Borough valuation (including Napier South) was £2,689,000, and of the H.B. County (including the Taradale district) £2,145,000. On this basis Napier would pay 47.22 per cent., H.B. County 37 per cent, and XX'airoa Countv, roughly, 15 pei* cent. The tally showed that the following person? or vehicles had passed over the bridge in ten davs: —-Napier 10,213, XVestshore 8533. Petane 2084. Taradale 282, other parts county 293, XVairoa 395. other places outside 487. Both the tally and valuation shotted that the claim was on a just basis. A. H. Ferguson, County Clerk and Treasurer, gave evidence that the question of the XX’estshore bridge had been discussed bv local bodies for four or five years, and the Napier Borough Council was the first local body to ask for a joint m.- ting to discuss the matter. That meeting was held. The resolution passed by the borough, dated November 1911, was as follows: “That in the interests of this borough, delegates from the H.B. County Council, Napier Harbour Board and Napier Borough Council meet in conference with a view to approaching the Railway Department to discuss the proportion ot the cost which should be borne by the bodies named, and that the County Council and Harbour Board be requested to give the matter their consideration.’’

Witness gave general evidence regarding tourist traffic, travel ing stock, etc. He had never seen stock crossing the bridge from the north. Tn his opinion tho new bridge tended most to the expansion of Napier. Tn the future, in witness’ opinion, the Napier trams would go across the new bridge to Westshore, if Napier had a future. The decision to erect the XVestshore bridge had, in a remarkable way, also decided the harbour and railway proposals. To Mr. Currie: During the tally 16 persons to and from Havelock North crossed the Westshore bridge. To Mr. Murray: There was, perhaps, some unusual traffic across the XVestshore bridge on one day’ of the tally, when the first pile of the new bridge was driven. Probably several hundred crossed then. Some also crossed to a “tangi. Any stock which crossed before 7 st.ra. and in the evening was not included in the tally. Some 11/0 cattle crossed during the ten days. The “cattle” included horses.

Mr. Murray submitted that the same amount of traffic would not cross the new bridge as used the present bridge. Mr. Martin submitted that- in the statement regarding proportionment of cost the figures had been based on “persons,” whereas cattle would certainly benefit the “inhabitants.” He considered, also, that the countyshould prepare an abstract of sheep, bullocks, eto., from the tally. Mr. Lusk: XVe will do so. Charles, D. Kennedy, County Engineer, gave evidence to the effect that th- Inner Harbour proposals could not be carried out unless the bridge was put back. There were something under half a dozen settlers who owned land on the north and south sides of the bridge. The present bridge was almost entirely- a Napier bridge—at least fivesixths of the traffic.

To Mr. Martin: It might be suggested that the North British Freezing XVorks (Westshore) benefitted other parts of Hawke’s Bay by reason of the fact that sheep from the south were driven across the bridge. It could be suggested, also, that other parts of the county than Petane benefitted by the bridge. l'o. Mr. Lynch (XX’airoa): XVitness knew that Mohaka relied on shipping for their heavy stores, and that many shipped their wool down the coast. Up to \\aikare, Napier was decidedly their port. It was impracticable to suggest that the Mohaka settlers should have an outlet around the hills through I’uketapu. when they could have a level road. There were about three months this year when motor cars could not trave. through to Wairoa. Thomas E. Crosse, County Chairman, and a shdepfarnier residing near Hastings, gave evidence as to the bridge being of very little commercial value to the south side of Hawke’s Bay. He had bought sheep in the north and they had always travelled via XVhareran’gi or Rissington. Owning the Patoka station, and land at XVharerangi, witness knew that the bulk of the stock travelled that way. So far as the county was concerned, it would benefit hy the bridge only so far as vehicular and pedestrian traffic was concerned. To Mr. Martin: XVitness considered that the farmers outside Meanee would dw their business with Hastings. To Mr. Lynch: There was once considerable agitation for a railway more inland, but that was practically clinched with the turning of the first sod of the East Coast railway. Napier was very interested then, and he presumed it would benefit thereby. Thomas Mason Chambers,_ sheepfarmer, who has from time to time been Chairman of the County, said the bridge would practically be of no benefit whatever to the south side of the county. XVitness gave similar evidence to previous witnesses regarding Petane being the only riding that would benefit by the bridge. The bridge was essential to the Inner Harbour, as if it had been constructed lower down the harbour could not have been made. Napier, therefore, would greatly benefit. To Mr. Lynch: XVitness was aware that goods were being shipped from Mohaka, especially heavy stuff. For about 2 b months the XVairoa road was practically impassable. XVitness was aware that the XVairoa County maintained the Mohaka and Waihua bridges, and a portion of the cost of the Wairoa bridge. To Mr. Lusk: Only the coast county in Mohaka would be served by the

shipping. The inland county would be served by Napier. Thomas Clark, county member for the Petane riding, said he had resided there for nearly 20 years. All the stock from his riding and XVairoa road went by the inland road and XVharerangi. During droughty y ears sheep came over the XX’airoa road, and ivere shipped at Napier to the South Island. During 1907-1915 oyer 300,000 were shinned, and the majority of them came over the XX’airoa road. Sheep came from XX’airoa as well as beyond it. XVilliam Edward Cooper, ratepayer, residing in Napier, gave evidence as to superintending the tally before referred to. To Mr. Murray : XVitness did not think residents of XX estshqre w’ould walk across the new bridge if there was a ferrv. To Mr. Lynch: The residence of the drivers of vehicles w'as taken, and passengers in cars were not questioned as to where each came from. To Mr. Grant: Witness just put down “Taradale” if the persons said “Taradale,” and did not question as to whether they were really in the town district. . This concluded the evidence for the County Council. NAPIER BOROUGH'S CASE.

Mr. Martin, in opening for the Napier Borough, said that in 1894 the county did not take advantage of the repealed Act, according to the County Clerk; and it was claimed that- it had therefore acted generously. Seeing that the county was regarded by the Government as the main body in connection with this bridge, it was surprising that that body should attempt to charge the Napier Borough more than it proposed to pay itself. It was quite clear that the County Council was the predominating body and should theieiore have to pay the greater .sum. .In reality there were two bridges being constructed, a road bridge and a railway bridge. And the Government never asked a borough to contribute to the cost of rai.way bridges. It was onlv the road bridge which they could deal with. He submitted that this road over a bridge had to be considered solely as a road, without consideration of the Inner Harbour or the embankment or the railway. It was clear from th© evidence thfit considerable benefit' existed in the south as well as the north of the county. Had the county cited Havelock, Taradale, etc., it would have been a tacit admission that the south benefited. He submitted that when the bridge was erected certain traffic which now came through the borough would not then do so. Motorists coming through from the Taradale road would probably go straight oyer the new bridge, and not touch at Napier, consequently trade would be lost. The borough proposed to claim as under: — Hastings Borough Council, 11 per cent., £2250. ' Havelock, 1| per cent., £350. Taradale, 3 per cent., £650. Mr. Short: What is the Napier Borough prepared to pay ? Mr Martin: We haven’s put that down. Mr. Short: I take it that you contend that Napier should be relieved of 15» per cent, which it is proposed Hastings, Havelock and Taradale should pay. Mr. Martin: XVe do not suggest that we should pay anything. XX’e do not contend that we should pay nothing. No doubt as the case goes on I shall be able to make a definite statement. Continuing, Mr. Martin produced several letters, one from Nelson Brothers, stating that 9589 and 849 lambs were driven from the north across XVestshore bridge during the period from November Ist, 1915, to June Bth, 1916. Mr. Lusk objected to these being “put in,” and Mr. Short disallowed the taking of the letters as evidence, and recommended Mr. Martin to bring the writer to give evidence. J. T. Harvey, manager of the H.B. Motor- Co., said stock generally went across the bridge before 7, o’clock in the morning. Witness had seen Stock arrive from the south for the freezing works. There was a lot of motor traffic across the bridge. People from the south could not very well get to the north without the bridge. The Taupo trade was nearly all strangers. To Mr. Lynch: The principal people to travel between Napier and XVairoa were Wairoa people. During the past winter the road had been blocked for about five months. XVitness considered that Taradale would greatly benefit by the construction of the bridge. Archibald McCormick, of Petane, said he had frequently seen cattle driven from Eskdale to the freezing works the other side of Napier. The Commission then adjourned till 10 o’clock this morning. fContinued nn Page fl.)