GREAT SOUTH ROAD

Sun (Auckland), Volume IV, Issue 1060, 26 August 1930, Page 7

GREAT SOUTH ROAD

PAVING FRANKLIN COUNTY’S PORTION DIFFICULTY ABOUT SUBSIDY from Our Own Correspondent PUKEKOH-E, Monday. “I have now to inform you that the board is unable to vary the rate of subsidy already offered to your county council toward the cost of reconstructing the Great South Road,” wrote Mr. F. S. Dyson, the Main Highways Board’s representative on No. 2 Highways Council to the Franklin County Council today. Commenting on a letter from the council, the board pointed out that the question of route, class of road and estimated cost were not definitely and finally settled and that the only point remaining was the apportionment of the cost. The subsidy of £3 for £1 which had been offered was the rate which it was indicated by the then Prime Minister would be paid when the Motor Spirits Taxation Act was introduced. The rate of subsidy, continued the letter, was that which was being generally paid on works of this class throughout the Dominion, and in no case had the class of pavement been laid down and the rate of subsidy subsequently decided. In the original negotiations in connection with the matter, it was indicated by representatives of the board that the subsidy would be £ 3 for £l, and it was subsequent to this that the class of pavement was investigated. Cr. 11. P. Garland, the council’s representative on the Highways Council, said the Highways Board persisted in its endeavour to place the council in a false position by stating the council was not prepared to accept the offers made to it. The Highways Board had recently circularised local authorities stating it was not prepared to carry out new works. Previously, it had asked the county council to spend £7OO a mile annually on the maintenance of the Great South Road, but the council was unable to provide more than £430 a mile. Recently, he' said, lie had heard Mr. A. Grayson, president of the Auckland Automobile Assoication, state that the Franklin County Council was the stumbling block and that the ratepayers should be up in arms because the splendid offer of the Highways Board had not been accepted by the county. The council carried a resolution to the effect that it was satisfied that the Highways Board or its officers did approve of the route, the classification of the road and the estimated cost as set out in its letter; also, that the council was not prepared to contribute a greater sum than already offered, i namely £20,000.