WAIHOU RIVER BRIDGE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXII, Issue 18923, 22 January 1925, Page 6

WAIHOU RIVER BRIDGE.

THE STRUCTURECONDEMNED. COUNTY COUNCIL'S ATTITUDE. DISAGREEMENT WITH ACTION, [liv TELEGRAPH.—OWN CORRESPONDENT] TE AROHA Wednesday. For some time past there has been a good deal of discussion between tho Te Aroha Borough Council and the Piako County Council on the question of whether the bridge#across the Waihou River, within the borough boundaries, should bo rebuilt.' At one time the bridge was on the boundary between tho borough and Herriesville, which was then in the county. As Herriesville grew in importance there was a demand for footpaths, lighting and other services, which the County Council was unable to meet. Without any opposition from the County it was decided to include Herriesville in the borough, and this brought tho bridge completely under - the control of the Borough Council. Later, the question of rebuilding the bridge arose. .though structurally sound, the bridge is long and narrow, and is regarded as quite unsuitable for the amount of traffic that has to be carried. Before the Borough Council cofild set about rebuilding it the authority of tho Minister for Public Works had to be obtained, and this could only bo given after the bridge had been declared unsafe by the Public Works engineer. » i Apportionment of Cost. Meanwhile the question arose of how the cost of the proposed now bridge should be apportioned. The Public Works Minister, to representations by the Mayor of Te Aroha, Air. li. Coulter, Mr. Hedge, a member of the council, and Mr. Wilcox, president of tho Chamber of Commerce, agreed to a grant of £SOOO, and it was proposed by the Borough Council that the balance should bo apportioned between the borough and vounty on a 60-40 basis. Two polls were taken in the evening at different times on a question of whether the county should contribute, and the proposal was defeated on each occasion. After this the County Council definitely opposed the rebuilding of tho bridge. • New interest was given to the matter by a communication received by the Te Aroha Chamber of Commerce from Mr. 0. E. Macmillan, M.P., claiming credit for enabling the County Council to raise its portion of the money for the bridge without recourse to a poll. Seeing that the County Council did not want a new bridge, that body was not at all pleased with what Mr. Macmillan had doiuj* and wrote to him asking him to explain, and to name any member of the LVwnty Council who had approached him with that object in view. Mr. Macmillan replied at great length, the letter being received at the council's meeting this week. The information tho council particularly desired, however, was not in the letter. After taking credit for the £SOOO grant promised by the Minister for Public Works, Mr. Macmillan said: "It is unfortunate if any friction has been set up between the To Aroha Borough Council and the County Council. It is inevitable that where two parties are interested in a proposal differences of opinion will occur. Member Suggests Commission. "My suggestion to you is that as differences have apparently occurred, you ask for a commission of inquiry to go into tho whole matter and adjudicate upon: (1) When (lie bridge should be rebuilt; (2) what portion the Piako County Council should contribute towards its rebuilding; (3) what kind of a structure should be erected; (4) what proportion of cost should be allotted to each district,, including the Highways Board; and (5) anything else that may have a bearing on the case." "I never suggested," the letter concluded, "that, the Piako County Council wished to avoid risking a poll of the ratepayers/ I did, however, contend that the Te Aroha Borough Council, whose district is vitally Interested in the bridge traffic, was nervous as to the result of a poll in the county. This nervousness is justified in view of the fact that twice such a proposal was turned down." Whilo the council was sitting*a telephone message was received from Mr. Campbell, Public Works Department, stating that the bridge had been condemned, ■ The County Council decided to write to the Minister for Public Works setting out its views, and the opinion • was ex" pressed that the bridge should not have been condemned before the engineer for the./ County Council had been heard.