DISTRICT HIGHWAYS COUNCIL.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19969, 10 December 1926, Page 9

DISTRICT HIGHWAYS COUNCIL.

Tho ordinary meeting of the No. 17 District Highways Council, held yesterday morning, was attended by _ Messrs J. R. Marks (chairman), \V. Blackie, J. Bennetts, H. M. Driver, and D. R. Jack. PENINSULA HIGHWAYS. A deputation consisting of Mr W. Fleming, clerk of tho Peninsula Road Board, and Mr S. Solomon, K.C., waited on the council to put before it tho position with reference to Main Highways on the Peninsula. • Tho Chairman said that they had passed a resolution recommending that the lower road from Dunedin to Portobello be designated a main highway. Negotiations had been going on for some time and there were one or two difficulties in connection with the operation of tho newly-formed county. Mr Solomon, who was acting for tho road boards concerned, had come to put the position before them. Mr Solomon referred to a meeting thar was held at the Town Hall some months ago, and said that they were then informed that the Highways Board would not consider declaring the Lower Road a highway so long as the affairs of tho Peninsula were .in tho hands of a number of different boards, but if they could arrange to have them under one control the board would treat them generously in tho matter. He thereupon took steps to have the provisions of the Cjpunties Act, which had been suspended m the Peninsula for 40 years, re vived. After a good deal of discussion tho Government consented to revive the provisions of the Counties Act in the Peninsula They were promised by Mr Jull, of the Main Highways Board, that if tho scheme was put through both tho .upper and lower roads to Portobello would bo declared main highways. Afterwards tho matter came before this council which recommended that the lower road from Dunedin to the Heads be declared a main highway. “Then,” said Mr Solomon, “all the fat was in the fire.” They had another meeting in Wellington, and the Highways Board passed a resolution referring the matter back to tho council for its consideration. He was assured that it was highly advantageous that the ..four existing boards should be done away with and merged into the Peninsula County. The county was now revived, but it would never do to have a county and four road boards as well. They had to persuade the people to come into the county by vote. He suggested that the upper road should be included as a main highway. If the Portobello and Peninsula Road Boards were included in the county the rest of the business was simple. He suggested that the council should recommend that tho upper and lower roads be declared main highways, provided that the Peninsula and Portobello Road Boards merged wi.'h the county. Mr Marks said that the revival of the Counties Act had not cleared the position unless the road boards, voted themselves in. Ho said the top road was tho backbone of the reading ystem as far as thd farming community was concerned. He thought they should recommend the declaration ot both the roads as highways. Mr Jack moved that they recommend the Highways Board to declare both upper and lower roads main highways as from the date of the Peninsula Road Board coming in to the county. This was carried unanimously. CORRESPOND ENCB. The Main Highways Board wrote advising that under the Main Highways Amendment Act, 1926, the subsidy for maintenance of highways had been increased from £1 for £1 to SOs for £1 as from September last.—Mr Bennetts asked if there was any chance of this being made retrospective, but the chairman said the board had decided otherwise. iho Main Highways Board wrote advising that an examination for certificates of competency would be held in the second week in January. 1927. The Main Highways Board wrote setting out the conditions to be complied with before loans could bo granted to local authorities. The total amount to be advanced over the whole of the Dominion at any one time shall not exceed £50,000, and arrangements have to be made for the redemption of the loan within 10 years’ time. Each application is to be considered on its merits. The Chairman said the consent of the ratepayers was necessary, and security had to be given by striking a rate. On the subject of payment of travelling expenses to county engineers attending meetings of highways councils, a reply was received from the Main Highways Board pointing out that there was no provision in tho Act which would permit of such payment. Tho Clerk of the Bruce County Council wrote applying for an additional £ISOO for main highways maintenance. The estimated expenditure had been exceeded by that amount. The Clerk later reported that £550 of this had already been expended in cleaning water-tables and gravelling and metalling. The balance would he used in maintenance work. Further details would be submitted later. Tho Clutha County Council forwarded an application for a loan of £3500 for financing tho construction of main highways. In May 1923, the council was authorised by a poll of ratepayers to raise a loan for the purpose of rebuilding bridges.—The Chairman said the matter had to bo considered further by the Main Highways Board.—Mr Jack said there was nothing further to be done by the Clutha County Council. It had complied with all the conditions. With reference to the council’s request to the Main Highways Board that the Bal-clutha-Kaitangata road be declared a main highway, the chairman said this was apparently under consideration. The estimated cost of putting the road in order was £I6OO. The Main Highways Board wrote regretting its inability to recommend the Minister to declare the Owaka to Waipati Stream road either a main highway or a Government road. The council had written to the Mam Highways Board expressing the opinion that the Green Island to Taieri Mouth road had some merits fer consideration as a main highway. The board replied advising that it was -iable to depart from its previous decision declining to declare the Green Island-Taieri Mouth road a main highway. It could not be regarded as a road connecting important centres, and it did not carry substantial traffic to and from sea ports or even from railway centres To agree to the request would establish a dangerous precedent for the board, and many other roads in a similar position would have to be dealt with. —Mr Bennetts • Very consoling! The Main Highways Board wrote approving of a free grant of £250 to the Taieri County Council for extraordinary maintenance on tho Dunedin-Invercargill Main Highway, but refusing free grants to Bruce and Tuapoka County Councils.—Mr Bennetts said the Highways Board was dis tinctly prejudiced against the riding system. —Mr Blackie said that it appeared that the counties that tried to keep their roads in order were left i the cold, while the board came to the assistance of those who' let their roads get in a vorv bad condition.— The Chairman: You got the grant because you did try and keep your roads in reasonable order. He added that the only solution in many instances was that the maintenance of main highway? should be a -charge on the general fund. It was becoming the duty of the coluncil to look into some of those verv bad pices of road, and make recommendations to tho Main High ways Board to con.pel councils t make more satisfactory nduistment of their funds. The Highways Board might consider whether it would continue to pay for good pieces of the road while very bad stretches had to be traversed to get to them.—Mr Driver said it should have been in the Highways Act to compel the maintenanoe to be taken from the general fund.—The Chairman said there was no real reason why the Tuapeka and Bruce Counties should not arrange for their main highways to bo a charge on the general fund.—Mr Ben netts: The only obstacle is human pre judice. —The Chairman produced several photographs of roads, soma very good, some very bad. taken in different ridings of the same county on the same road. “Tho results of parochialism within a county,' commented tho chairman.—Mr Blackie moved that it be a strong recommendation from the council to the Bruce and Tuapeka County Council’s to make their main highways a charge on the general funds as the council considered this the only solution to remedy t’ > particularly bad conditions in poor ridings. Failing the provison of reasonably adequate funds for these bad sections to enable them lo maintained in a satisfactory way the council would feel impelled to recommend the High ways Board to refuse subsidy on these sec fions because the council believed thM tho money now being spent there is hopelessly inademmte and being wasted. -Mr Jack the motion, which wns nrried Mr Fisher, engineer for the Tuapeka Countv Council, said that the general account of the Tuapeka Council had spent about £4OOO in plant for road construction.—The Chairman; The ridings have been obiged to contribute to the purchase of the machinery, and now they have not enough money to use it. —Mr Bennetts moved that the board be asked to review

its decision with regard to Tuapeka and Bruce Counties and that each case be considered on its merits.—The Chairman moved as an amendment the same recommendation with the proviso “provided the highways become a charge on the county funds.” —The amendment was carried by three votes to two. The Main Highways Board wrote requesting the supply of an estimate of the cost of constructing deviation near Deep Stream Hill. —Deferred till an inspection can be made by the chairman and the county inspector. The Clerk, Taieri County Council, wrote applying for authority for construction of a bridge over Shannon Creek to replace the ford crossing.—On the motion of Mr Blackie, it was decided to recommend the request to the Main Highways Board. The Clerk of the Lawrence Borough Council wrote requesting further consideration of the request for a contribution of £lO towards the construction of the Manuka Gorge bridges.—The Chairman explained the position of the borough, and expressed the opinion that the matter should be allowed to lapse.—The council agreed to recommend that the matter be allowed to lanse. The Main Highways Board wrote advising that under “The Main Highways Amendment Act, 1926.” it was empowered to subsidise the maintenance of bridges in boroughs on a more liberal basis than that provided by section 23 of “The Main Highways Act, 1922.” —The C.erk of the Clutha County Council wrote advising that the proposed expenditure on the Balclutha traffic bridge to March 31 next was £B4. — Information to be forwarded to the board. The Engineer of the Clutha County Council wrote advising that during the construction of the Pomahaka River bridge the road would be closed to traffic and that traffic would be divertea via the bridge near Conical Hills Railway Station. —The Main Highways Board wrote agreeing to subsidise the cost of maintenance of detour road during the construction of the bridge. The Engineer of the Clutha County Council wrote directing attention to the advisability of having an inspector in constant attendance during construction of Pomahaka River bridge and inquiring if the board would be agreeable to his wages being included in the total cost of . the bridge.—The Chairman expressed the opinion that an inspector should be on the spot all the time during the progress of important parts of such work —The council agreed to support the request. The Engineer of the Clutha County Council wrote reporting the collapse of the Valley Creek bridge and forwarding plans of a new str cture for approval.— The Main Highways Board reported that the plans were satisfactory, and stated that the question whether this work was maintenance or construction would be considered at the next meeting. The Town Clerk, Lawrence, wrote requesting the adoption of a resolution passed by his council for the placing on a more satisfactory footing h o rouclis through which main highways pass.—The Chairman said it was not what the borough spent, but what the county did outside, that decided tIK amount of subsidy to the borough. The arrangement was a very unsatisfactory one from several points of view. He calculated that the Lawrence Boorugh should have received about £l2O, whereas it received only £37 10s. —The Chairman suggested the following motion: —“That continuation of_ main highways in boroughs should be subsidised on a basis of actual "expenditure by the borough, but not exceeding the amount which in the opinion of the Main Highways Board should be expended to provide reasonable maintenance for the class of highway on which the borough is situated, and this council suggests that representations be made to the Government towards amending the legislation accordingly.”—Mr Bennetts said he entirely agreed with the views expressed by the chairman, and it seemed to him that some alteration would have to be made. The present legislation was working out entirely unfairly to the boroughs.—The motion was suported by Mr Jack and carried.