THE HUTT ROAD

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIX, Issue 8857, 7 October 1914, Page 3

THE HUTT ROAD

QUESTION OF MAINTENANCE BOARD OF CONTROL TO BE SET DP.

Yesterday afternoon there took place in the Mayor’s room, at the Town Hall, a conference between representatives of the various local bodies interested in the upkeep of the Hutt road. The Mayor of Wellington (Mr J. P. Luke) presided over the following delegates: Messrs J. W. McEwau (Mayor of Petone), H. Baldwin (Mayor of lower Hutt). C. C, Crump (Mayor of Onslow). M. Welch (Hutt County Council), 0. Jerusalem (Johnsonville Town Board), I l '. T. Moore (Makara County Council), R. H. Webb (Upper Hutt Town Board), W. J. Organ (Slayor of Eastbourne). POINTS FOB DISCUSSION.

The Mayor of Wellington, addressing the suburban representatives, said that they had met together to arrange the constitution and functions of a board to control the Hutt road. He was sure that the Government would feel disposed to give effect to the resolutions of such a board. He thought that the following points should be discussed:— (1) The board to consist of one representative from Wellington City Council, one from Petone Council, one from Lower Hutt Council one from Makara County Council, one from Hutt County Council, one from Onslow Borough, and one from the combined boroughs of Eastbourne. Miramar. Upper Hutt, and Johnsonville—a total of seven members. Such a board would be able to look after the load well and would not bo too nnwieldly. The Mayor suggested that the four boroughs selecting one representative between them should do so biennially. (2) The proposed board to deal with the construction, maintenance, and control of the road. (3) The board to allocate the liability and collect the charges. (4) General functions of the board and its machinery. (5) That the city solicitor be requested to draft a bill to be referred to the local bodies concerned; the city solicitor to confer with the local authorities in drafting the hill. IMMEiDIATE AGREEMENT NEEDED. Continuing. Mr Luke said that the local authorities could pay hack the cost to the Government ’by annual charges, if the Government supplied it in the first place. The surface of the road, he said, had already been damaged through lack of control, and he thought that an agreement should be come to immediately. -Mr H.. Baldwin asked what was the position of the representatives of those local bodies which had not agreed tothe proportion of the capital cost allocated by Mr Short (the Commissioner). Did the agreement of any local representative bind his council to submit to the proportion suggested? Mr Luke said ho did not think so. Mr Baldwin made. it clear that ■he did not wish to accept the • proportions laid down , by Mr Short. Sir P. T. Moore emphasised that the. road could not be neglected any longer. The upkeep must be faced, even. if the risk of acceptance of the disputed. .£60,000 -was involved. Mr J. W. MoEwan: "Is the board of control to have complete power in apportioning the cost of maintenance among local bodies?’’ . . Mr Luke: "Yes. But that is quite apart from the question of <apital cost. In this connection, the capital cost is divorced from the maintenance. Mr Short’s division of the capital cost is only- taken as the basis for maintenance. as we must have some standard. The proportion of the maintenance cost suggested was:— Wellington 38 per cent., Petone 18 per cent. Lower Hutt 14 per cent. Makara 12 per cent., Hutt County 8 per cent., Onslow 6 per. cent Johnsonville 2 per cent.. Upper Hutt 1J per cent., Eastbourne i per cent.. Miramar i per cent, Mr W. J. Organ said, that he had always held that the Hutt road should be under State control. If the Government would not agree to the proportions of the capital cost, what was the good of discussing it? ■ Mr McEwan, on behalf of Petone, objected to both the 18 per cent, capital charge, and the proposed 18 per cent, maintenance charge. "WASTE OF TIME TO OBJECT."

Mr M. Welch, said that it was waste of time for any local body to object. It was nonsensical for any borongh not to admit liability. The Government had treated the local bodies very fairly. The matter should be settled quickly. He moved that a board of control, as suggested by the Mayor of Wellington, be set up. Mr Moore seconded the proposal, and hoped that the board would be able to regulate traffic (speed and lighting particularly) in the same way as was done in the city. The way in which the road was now used was disgraceful. In reply to Mr C. C. Crump. Mr Luke said that question of the .£60,000 should be left alone. It was between the Government and the boroughs concerned. It was the clear duty of the conference that day to set up the constitution of a board and to get this embodied in a bill, so as to commence the work of repair. Mr Baldwin declined to take any action in the constitution of the board. Mr McEwan again strongly objected to the allocation of both the capital cost and the maintenance charges. The local bodies in, the Hutt district had not been given a fair deal in the .matter Petone’s contribution would work Put to £1 Hs Id per head, or U-M m the £ on unimproved value. Onslow s share was'even worse per head of population, but slightly, better on the unimproved value basis. Wellington city had only to pay 6s lOd per head._or 2d in the £ on unimproved value. The city was much better able to pay a largo rate than Petone. Lower Hutt was to pay £1 15s Id per head or 2£d per £ (unimproved value) He hod no objection to supporting the hoard if it could allocate fresh proportions. Voices; “Can’t be, done! The motion wag earned, with one dissentient (Mr McEwan). Mr Baldwin (2), (3). (*). and (5) of the Mayor of Wellington were similarly Tw finally resolved that no agreement of the conference should he taken to waive the right of any local body to object to the allocation of the capital cost. _