The Westshore Bridge

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XVIII, Issue 83, 20 March 1928, Page 7

The Westshore Bridge

Local Body Delegates Confer

No Definite Conclusions Reached

For the purpose of seeing how far the local bodies interested in the old Westshore Bridge are prepared to go in having it put into a safe state of repair for pede-s trians, a conference of delegates was convened by Mr. John Mason, M.P., yesterday afternoon. Present, Mr J. Mason, M.P., (chairman), Messrs. A. E. Jull, P. F. Higgins J. P. Kenny (Napier Harbour Board), J. Vigor Brown, and C. H. Wilkie (Napier Borough Council). The Hawke’s Bay County Council was not represented.

Mr. Mason in opening explained that he had invited the Hawke’s Bay County Council to send delegates to the conference but they had declined to do go. Mr Mason stated thgt in reply to a query to the Public Works Department he had been advised by the Minister that he would be prepared to contribute towards repairing the bridge a gum not exceeding £250 ag was agreed to bv his predecessor. The Port Ahuriri Embankment Act contained two agreements in which the Railway Department was to have control of th e railway and the Hawke’s Bay County Council of the roadway. It was also agreed that the old bridge should be demolished. Ft appeared to him to be perfectly clear that the Hawke’s Bay County Council was to close the old hrido-e while it could he removed by the Napier Harbour Board, being, therefore, under the control of the latter body WHY NOT A LIMITED CO. ? Mr. Jull contended that such was not the case. There was an agreement between the County Council and tile Harbour Board that the council would have to remove the bridge when called upon and the board would remove the piles under water. Mr Mason admitted that Mr. Jull would be thoroughly conversant with the matter but what Mr Jull referred to must be a further amendment to the Port Ahuriri Act. The position affecting the bridge to-day was unfortunate. As the Westshore people were ratepayers to the County Council the counci] had a duty to provide them with access and he regretted that they were not present. If. however, the* bodies represented could see their way to assist the County Council might fall into line Before the Government could be exexpected to assist there would have to be some assurance that the bridge would remain there for several years It had occurred to him that as the West shore people were vitally interested in the bridge they could form themselves into n limited liability company and take it over The various local authorities could assist the company but if thftv wore prevented from doing so it could easily be overcome bv legislation. An estimate could bv obtained from an engineer as to the nrohable cost of putting the btw m order for pedestrians. The whole thing depended upon whether the Harbour Board would be willing to permit the bridge to remain there.

NO BODY WANTS IT. Mr. Jull. in reply to Mr. Brotfn, explained that the board bought the bridge from the County Council for £lO but later it wa s bought back for th© tame amount. The bridge was built b.V the Government and not by the Harbour Board it being agreed that the County Council should share two-thirds of the maintenance and the Napier Borough Council one-third The board had never at any time been liable for its upkeep. Mr. Brown: Who started to demolish the bridge the other day? Mr. .lull: The Hawke’s Bay County Council. Mr. Brown: On whose authority? Mr. Jull - On their own. They said they could not accept any liability fo?< people risking their lives on it. The Hawke’s Bar County Council had been the controlling body and had called upon the Borough Council for its share. Mr. Mason at this stage stated that an estimate was given two years ago by the Public Works Department tha* the bridge could be put in order for seven years for £750 and that th« annual maintenance would be about £lOO. Mr Wilkie: It seems that the Harbour Board do not want it and the Hawke’s Bay Conntv Council won’t have anything to do with it, so

it looks as if it will be a matter for the Westshore people and the Napier Borough Council. Mr Higgins; Naturally, the Harbour Board, before doing anything, would want to know the probable life of the bridge. THE FERRY IDEA Mr. Jull. The whole question is one of access for the Westshore people. Is the bridge the only alternative!' II a ferry service were established the board would agree to provide landing stages on both sides. Mr. Mason; I do not think that the Westshore people thought of having a ferry service otherwise than as a temporary measure Mr. Brown: I do not think it is asking too much for the board to give £250 towards the work. I think the Napier Borough Council would support th e proposal with a similai amount. I foci that with that done the County Council would not stand out and would make a similar grant With the Government grant there would lie enough to put the bridge in order I do not think that the County Council would miss £250 out of its £20,000. nor would the Harbour Board miss that much. Mr. Jull: We have not got a balance of £20,000. Mr. Jull: Mv view is that the bridge has served its term. What is left of it is 50 vears old. I think that the council is doing a wise thing in demolishing it. WESTSHORE BLAMES THE COUNCIL. Mr. Mason: The bridge, it has been stated, could be put into good repair for several vears. If such an assurance had not been given—well the money would not he put into it. Mr. Kenny: The ferry that has been running has given every satisfaction in regard to time. Mr Wilkie: At present the ferry is being run without a charge, the owner is reiving on any contributions made. The trouble is that the people iust walk oil' ami say: ''The. Hawke's Bay County Council ought to pay fin this I” Mr. Mason; The board is willing to spend a certain amount on jetties. As they are only of a temporal.-, nature, why not expend it in another direction ?

Mr Jull; We have done the iob and it is good enough to last most oi us out.

Mr Mason then suggested that the delegates should put the position Wore the board to ascertain n the budge could be permitted to remain there for a definite period. With tha i done thev would be able to make a definite move.

Mr. Higgins pointed out that the daily fares on the workers was a heavy drain on them.

Mr. Kenny: It is just as heavy on the workers wh 0 live at the Napiei South ami go to work at the Port. Mr. Brown: It seems to me’that the County Council is shedding its responsibility

Mr. Jull. They are not doing any thing of the kind. They have said that the bridge is so decayed that i! is no longer safe. Mr Mason. It is certainly not safe and the question is. How long will the Harbour Board allow it to remain there if it is made safe?

It was then agreed to leave the matter to the delegates of the Harbour Board to put the position before the member s of that body and ascertain if the bridge may remain for seven vears if made safe. Mr Mason agreed to ascertain what it would cost to put the bridge in a state of repair an<] also what Hie people of Westshore were prepared to do in the matter of forming a company or board of trustees.