BOARD OF WORKS.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 12711, 5 August 1919, Page 8

BOARD OF WORKS.

TRAMWAY BOARD DISCUSSION.

The proposal to establish a Metropolitan Board of Works'was further disat yesterday’s meeting of the Christchurch Tramway Board, following on the reading of a letter from the Drainage Board enclosing the resolution carried at the recent conference of local bodies, recommending that a commission should be set up to report on the whole project; also enclosing a suggested order of reference for the commission.

The chairman, the Hon John Barr, M.L.C., who, with Mr A. S. Taylor, represented the Tramway Board at the conference, said that he had moved an amendment at the conference that a Government commission should be sot up to report on the scheme, in the hope that although the board disapproved of the proposals brought forward by Mr Waiter Hill, some method might be evolved under which the Tramway Board could give definite assistance. Although his amendment was lost he believed that it met with more approval than was shown by the voting., as some of the delegates went to the meeting with a dictum from the local authorities they were representing, and had to vote accordingly. In the speaker’s opinion the proposal should be inquired into by experts from outside Christchurch. Younger men were wanted than those suggested by the Drainage Board. All men were human, an .d a man could not be expected to criticise a project of Ms own creation. He assumed that the order of reference suggested for the proposed commission was drawn up by the chairman of the Drainage Board—it certainly did not 8 man ate from the conference. Personally he did not approve of the board taking any further action in the matter. He assumed that any local body expressing approval of the setting up of the proposed commissiou would become ft party to any expense incurred. Such expense, ho considered would be between £2OOO and £3OOO, as a considerable amount of work would be entailed. The crux of the position was that the board had definitely expressed disapproval of certain schemes, concerning which the Drainage Board' now wished to obtain evidence with a view to propounding a new proposal having those schemes as a basis. The proposed commission would have no legal power and could not call for. evidence or the production of documents. He moved that the Drainage Board should be notified that the I ramway Board did not approve of the. commission proposed to be set up. In. the course of the discussion which, ensued the- chairman said that underving the whole of the Drainage .Board's scheme was the taking of the profits from profitable public utilities to pay for the proposed extension of tlic drainage system. Mr G. T. Booth suggested that the board should set forth its objections'to the Drainage Board’s proposal in addition to carrying the motion. He suggested that the .motion sliotdd be amplified by adding a statement that the board preferred a Commission with wider powers, which, it considered, should be instructed to report on water and ■■drainage schemes .only, apart from tlie TratUway Board, electricity and other departments. The chairman agreed to : this amendment.

Mi- T. H. Duyey considered the board should receive the letter and embody in a- separate motion what form of commission would be acceptable to' it. - .

Mr H. Pearce contended that if the resolution, as amended, were carried it would hind tlic board to contributing towards any expenditure incurred ■ Mbc setting up of the corn mission The chairman said the carrving of the resolution committed them to nothing They should show that they were in sympathy with the Drainage ‘Board but opposed to anything which would alienate the tramway funds. After_ further desultory discussion the motion, as follows, was“ put and carried on the voices■

•‘That the Drainage Board’s letter be received and that it be, notified that the Tramway Board does not approve of the commission proposed to be set U P;, 39 .' t wcm J, d Prefer a commission with -wider authority and consisting of persons outside,- Christchurch; further that the investigations should be con’ fined to drainage-and water.” .