BOARD OF WORKS.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 12718, 13 August 1919, Page 3

BOARD OF WORKS.

HEATHCOTE COUNCIL’S

ATTITUDE.

Tlio- decision to appoint a committee three local experts to report on. Air Walter Hill’s proposals for a Metropolitan Board of Works, which was agreed to at a recent meeting of representatives of local bodies held to consider the scheme, was discussed by the Heathcoto County Council last night. It was proposed that the Com mission should consist of the engineers af the Drainage Board. City Council and Lyttelton Harbour Board and two recount ants. air G. K. Burton moved that the council should strongly disapprove of local engineers being appointed a Commission to report on the proposed Metropolitan Board of Works. In his opinion, the engineers suggested all had (heir own ideas, and must be to a certain extent a. little biassed. The main undertaking of the Board of Works seemed to be sewerage, and, except for Cashmere, the council had nothing to do with sewerage. If it went out that I tlie council was in iavour of the local Commission appointed, it would have to hear its share of the expenses; and, as three engineers and two accountants were to be engaged the bill would bo heavy, and the council would have to pay for a report in which it was pracuninterested. He had always been in favour of a Board of Works, taking over sewerage, water supply, tramways and main roads, but he considered that outside exports should be engaged. He also favoured the whole of the domains being controlled by owe Domains Board, as at present there was too- much overlapping. The council should- absolutely decline to have anything tod o vith the proposed Commission of local engineers, as the report would be Of little value to itMr G. M. Hall seconded the motion pro forma. Ho said that, while he was in favour of a good deal of what Mr Burton had said, he behoved that for tho sake of a few pounds they should get the information. If it got out that the council was against the appointment of a Commission, the idea would nc favoured that they were opposed to a Board of M orks. The extension of the sewerage was necessary, verv noces- I snry, and the question of a gravitation : water supply would have to be faced I sooner or la ter. The Board of Works j would take over these, important scr- j vices and prevent overlapping, of'which i there was too much at present. If it I was going to cost the council £SO to 1 get the report, he was in favour of ob- | taming it; but before committing them- | selves to any expense they could a seer- i tain what would bo their proportion of 1 the cost. He would like to suggest an amendment that a- request should bo 1 made to the Drainage Board to give an j idea what the council’s proportion of j cost would amount to. i Mr Burton said that at the meeting of representatives he and Mr Flavell had supported the appointment of a committee of outside experts, hut were against the appointment of local experts. He was not against a Board of Works or the appointment of a Commission, but against the appointment of local engineers to the Commission. | “Where is this expense going to I ' end?’’ asked Mr W. Scarff. He said that it- seemed that it would cost a great deal to prepare the reports, and he would like to have an iflea what the i council would have to pay- It had been I suggested that the Commission would j cost about £3OOO, which seemed rather i an excessive amount. Tho chairman (Mr C. Flavell) said that it was not intended to extend trie sewage area beyond Biccarton, Sprey- ■ clou. Beckenham, St Albans and East Linwood. He understood that the report would cost only a few hundred pounds, and certainly not more than £IOOO. There was a- good deal in favour of the scheme, and a- good deal ' against it. Members of the council had j to remember that they represented the ) ratepayers, and must vote according to , tiie wishes of the ratepayers, and nob , their own private views. At the conj ference Air Walter Hill had stated quite frankly that the ratepayers outside the boundaries proposed would get no bene--1 fit from sewerage, and the ratepayers had to be considered in this respect. The city engineer also was against a. gravitation water supply scheme and in favour of artesian supply, and the Drainage Board engineer had his own ideas about drainage and sewerage. For these reasons, he was opposed to the local engineers, but ho would support the appointment of outside ex-

perts. Mr Barton said he would alter his motion to read as follows: “That the council is not in favour of the appointment of a Commission of local experts, hut strongly supports a Commission of outside experts to report on Mr Walter Hill’s scheme or a Metropolitan Board of Works.” Air Hal! seconded the motion. Air A. A. Adams said that,, as for as he could ascertain from the ratepayers in the Hillsborough Riding, which he represented, they were opposed to the scheme, as it was not likely to be of much benefit to them. Thov argued that they should not bo called upon to pay for sewerage for other districts and not receive the same treatment for themselves. I Air hi hi Patten said that if the motion was carried the council would be I liable for a share of the expense of the I Commission.

“Of outside experts, but not of local experts,” said Mr Burton. Tho chairman said that the Tramway Board was right out against the scheme, and the. City Council seemed lukewarm ‘ regarding it. and without the support ! of those two bodies it looked as though j it would he a failure. He would sup- j port the motion, as he believed the in- j form at Am obtained by outside experts | would be useful to them. The motion was carried. DISCUSSION AT FIRE BOARDThe Metropolitan Board of AVorks proposal was discussed at last nights meeting of tho Fire Board, following on the reading of a letter from tho Christchurch Drainage Board’s secretary, submitting the resolution passed at the recent conference regarding the proposal, and also the suggested order of reference for the proposed commission to inquire into the whole matter. The chairman (Mr H. P. Hopkins), who represented the Fire Board at the conference, said that lie had informed the conference that the hoard had no power to commit itself to any expenditure. Personally he thought it would be. a great mistake if the Fire Board were merged in-, tho proposed Alotropolitau Board of Works, as the hoard was not a, trading concern, its profits were small, and it stood quite apart front any other local body. Water and drainage would be quite as much as the proposed new board could manage. Under the Fire Brigades Act, if the proposed Board of Works were formed and desired to take over the matter of fire- prevention, the Fire Board must be dissolved and tho sanction of the ratepayers obtained to the proposed Board of AVorks taking over the matter of fire prevention. Tho scheme, instead of being a saving, would, in the speaker’s opinion, result in a much greater expenditure. The board, of course, affirmed the principle that better drainage and better sewerage were necessary for a growing city such as Christchurch. He moved:—

“ The Christchurch Fire Board informs the chairman of the Drainage Board that it does not consider that any saving to the ratepayers, or any greater efficiency* can he obtained by a Metropolitan Board of Works taking over the Fire Brigade of the city; fmtherraore, it will not be responsible for any share of the costs of a commission.”

iMr H. R-. Rushridgc endorsed the chairman’s remarks. The hoard did not carry on works in any shape or

form, and was merely concerned with the prevention of fire. Mr F. Burgoyne said that there was no suggestion of increased efficiency resulting from the establishment of the proposed Board of Works. All the board needed to do was to say that it had no power to contribute to any expenditure which might bo incurred. Personally be would like to see all the bodies abolished for miles round the city, and their affairs managed by one central hoard.

Air H. Hollanad considered that the proper action for the hoard to take would bo to withdraw from the matter altogether. The board was nob a local authority, and had no right to ho mixed up in the matter- The Fire Board representative, in the speaker’s Opinion, was only invited to attend the conference- as an act of courtesy.

Mi- A- S. Williams considered Hint the board should have a voice in the proceedings. The chairman said that, if the board withdrew it would be left with no champion. Would the City Council take np the Fire Board’s brief if the matter wore gone on with and the board had withdrawn from it altogether? After further desultory discussion the motion was carried on the voices.