“NOBODY’S BABY”

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XIX, Issue 282, 13 November 1929, Page 5

“NOBODY’S BABY”

WAIPUKURAU TRAFFIC BRIDGE

OBJECTIONS TO NEW STRUCTURE.

PATANGATA COUNTY’S DISCUSSION.

(Special Representative.)

The vexed question of the assessments niaue on local bodies towards the cost of erecting a new traffic bridge over the 'Juki Juki river, at Waipukurau involved a lengthy discussion at yesterday’s meeting of the Patangata County Council, which is the controlling body of the bridge. The subject was opened by the receipt of letters from the Waipukurau Borough , Council and Waipukurau County Council apropos their objections to the Patangata County Council’s apportionment of the cost.

Cr. White drew attention to a statement made by the engineer of the Waipawa County Council to the effect that the proposed bridge was of little concern to his council, and also that a new bridge was not required at present. It seemed an extraordinary statement, said Cr. White that the Waipawa County Council had constructed an expensive tar-sealed road right to the edge of the bridge. The Patangata County Council should, in view of the attitude adopted by the Waipawa Council, hand over control of the bridge to the Waipawa County Council. Cr. Thos. Butler said that the Patangata County Council did not benefit by the bridge, and he believed the new bridge was being pushed by tho Associated Auctioneers. The spcakci contended that the natural centre ol the district was at Otane, and the saleyards should be moved to that place. Cr. White said that if the council could get rid of tho control of the bridge the Waipawa County Council could take what steps it liked to have the constiuction of the new bridge de layed. The chairman (Cr. Chas. Pattison) pointed out that the Patangata County Council was not pushing the bridge unduly, but the evidence of the engineer showed that the structure was decayed and that a new bridge was positively necessary. ENGINEER'S VIEWS. The engineer (Mr J. C. McLauchlan) said that he was convinced that it was dangerous to meet vehicles on the centre span of the bridge. It was not economeal to go on taking risks, and the safety of the public was a big factor to be considered. No engineer was justified in stating definitely that the present bridge would last any particular period of rears, or that a new bridge was rot required. Years ago the Public Works

Department had reported that the bridge was not safe for present-day traffic.

The chairman said that there could be no doubt that a new bridge was required, and if any delay occurred in constructing it the Patangata County Council should take steps to get rid of the responsibility of it and allow the Waipawa County Council to assume control and also responsibility. Cr. H. M. Christie asked that in the event of an accident, what would be the council’s liability?

The chairman gave it as his opinion that the responsibility would have to be shared by the contributing local bodies.

After further discussion, the following resolution was moved, by Cr. White and seconded by Cr. Longley:

“That in view of tho publicly expressed opinion of the engineer ot the Waipawa County Council that the Waipukurau traffic budge will stand for at least five years, and also a similar opinion from the Mayor and Cr. Chambers, of the Waipukurau Borough Council, this council write to these local bodies pointing out that, as the bridge is in their districts, the Patangata County Council does not wish to push the reconstruction o f the bridge against then wishes, but in view ot the considered opinion of its own engineer cannot accept any responsibility for delaying the matter. It is suggested that as the views of the actual owners ot the bridge favour delay, that these local bodies make arrangements for assuming control of the bridge as soon as possible, when they will then be in a position to take the matter up with the Main Highways Board.”