THE HEATHCOTE BRIDGE.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 9074, 1 November 1907, Page 4

THE HEATHCOTE BRIDGE.

THE MAINTENANCE ALLOCATION. COMMISSION TO BE i APPOINTED. At the time of the construction of the new Heathcote lift bridge, a Commission, was appointed to allocate the amount of contribution, to the cost by the five bodies interested in the bridge, namely, the Christchurch Tramway Board, the Woolston and Sumner Borough Councils, the Heathcote Road Board and the Christchurch City Council. The allocation then made was as follows: — Tramway Board 25 per cent, ' Woolston 20 per cent, Sumner 20 per cent, Heathcote 20 per cent and Christchurch 15 per cent. There was a maintenance clause in the contract, but it expired on. August 23, and since then the Woolston Borough Council has been considering the question of the allocation of maintenance charges, with the result that it proposed that the Tramway Board should contribute 40 per cent, the City Council 10 per cent, and each of the remaining bodies 16 2-3 per cent each. , When the proposal was communicated to the bodies interested, however, none of them agreed to it wholly, and it was decided that in order, if possible, to avoid the expense of a Commission to determine the point, a conference should be held. The conference took place yesterday afternoon in the City Council Chambers. There were present — Messrs J. Richardson (Woolston), who was elected chairman, A. W. Beaven and H. Pearce (Tramway Board), J. Forrester (City Council), G. Mitchell (Sumner) and E. Wilkinson (Heathcote). ( After the chairman had stated the purpose of the meeting, Mr Beaven asked what the Wodlston Borough Council's idea was in taking up a previous allocation and ignoring the recommendation of the last Commission that had inquired into the matter. The chairman said that the Woolston Council had an idea that the Commissioner, in handling a matter of the sort, would not have gone on the lines of his allocation for construction, but would have referred back to his previous allocation in regard to maintenance. Mt Beaven. said that the Tramway Board would stand a very much better chance if a new Commission was set up. Under the latest decision, it was paying 25 per cent of the total cost of the bridge, looking at the fact that otherwise it would have had to put up a bridge of its own. But when it came to a question of maintenance, the Board was on a much better footing. The trams ran on their own rails, and there was no maintenance charge against them. The principal item of maintenance in the bridge would be the decking. If he might be permitted to advise the local bodies, they should be glad to take np the last allocation., and let the matter rest there. In reply to the chairman. Mr Beaven said that the space occupied by the trams was eight feet. The chairman said that it must be admitted that the tram traffic was much heavier than ordinary wheel traffic. Mr Beaven moved that the conference should adopt for reference to the respective bodies, the same allocation for maintenance as that made by the Commissioner, Mr Short, for construction. Mr Wilkinson said that the Heathcote Rtoad Board had decided that its contribution should .be 1.0 per cent. The chief argument of the Commissioner at the last " allocation had been that the traffic from the three Heathcote quarries had been enormous ; but he was safe in saying that there were now only two quarries, and there was a prospect that another one would be closed. The metal traffic was not so serious as previously. The chairman said that that point could bo decided on a tally of traffic. Mr Wilkinson said that he did not see why Heathcote should pay more than 10 per cent, and he thought that Sumner should pay more than it was asked to. Mr Mitchell said that Sumner was not interested in heavy metal traffic. If there was one quarry closed in Heathcote, the other quarries were doing the same business. He did not agree to the 16 2-3 per cent, but was prepared to accept it. Mr Pearce seconded Mr Beaven'e motion, and said that 40 per cent was a rerj unfair amount. The Board kept its track over the bridge, and none of the other bodies was called upon to pay for it. In reply to questions,, the chairman said that two representatives of one body could speak, but they could not both vote. It was hoped that for many years there would be no charge for maintenance, but the Woolston Council had to be ready for contingencies. Mr Forrester moved that the allocation suggested by Woolston should be adopted. Mr Beaven said that he must emphatically protest against such a proposal, and he would give notice of the Board's intention to ask for a Commission. The proportion was outrageous. On the first Commission on maintenance, the old Tramway Company had contracted to do certain things, and, therefore, had had to pay maintenance; but the Board had contracted to do- nothing, and, therefore, the contribution should be nothing. The wear and tear as far as the Board was concerned was nil. Mr Pearce said that 40 per cent was j out of all reason, and- it wa6 attempting to force the Board. I 'Hie chairman, said that Wooleton

could exist just as well without the bridge as with it. Mr Wilkinson said that Heathcote, much more than Woolston, could do without the bridge. The carriage of metal was being reduced day by day, while a large proportion of it came across on the rails. The amendment moved by Mr Forrester was carried, Mr Beaven, the only dissentient, asking that his vote should be recorded. A vote of thanks was passed to the chairman, and the conference closed.