THE WAR MEMORIAL.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 16570, 1 November 1921, Page 6

THE WAR MEMORIAL.

SUPERVISION FEES QUESTIONED.

A slight hitch in the arrangements for the completion of the Bridge of Remembrance War Memorial occurred at last night’b meeting of the City Council on the subject of the fees to be paid to the successful competitors, Messrs Prouse and Glimmer, for supervising the building of the understructure, for which the council is pledged lo find the money. The Finance Committee reported that its representatives had recently interviewed the War Memorial Executive, and discussed the question of the erection of the bridge. The committee recommended that the work of the understructure of the bridge should be fully set out in tho plans and specifications lor which tenderers would be required to give a separate price. The committee also recommended that the carrying out of the whole work should be entrusted to Messrs Prouse and Glimmer, the winners of the competition, and that the War Memorial Executive should be informed that the plans and specifications of the understructure must be submitted to the council and approved before tenders were called for the work, and that only New Zealand stone should be used in the erection of the bridge. Councillor R. D. Martin asked why the understructure should be supervised by the architects? What would be the fee? “ Six and a half per cent on the cost,” said Councillor Flesher. “On ten thousand pounds?” said Councillor Martin. Councillor Flesher said that it was far better to entrust the work to the architects, but the council’s engineer might supervise the work- The council’s liability, of course, would bo limited to the bare understructure, and not to any ornamentation. Councillor W. H. Winsor said that it would be quite impossible and unwise if possible, to cut the job in two. Councillor Sullivan said that it was unfair for the city to pay £650. Councillor Winsor said that if the cost of the understructure was £BOOO, the council would pay fees on that amount only. Councillor Martin moved that tho council’s acting engineer should supervise the work. Replying to Councillor Sullivan, Councillor Winsor said that it was not absolutely necessary, although absolutely customary, to give the job to one man. If the engineer supervised it, he would lose time on other work. Councillor F. R. Cooke seconded Councillor Martin’s motion. Councillor A. Manhire said that the council would be looking for trouble in having two men on the job, and it might b© wise to take time to consider the matter. Prouse and Gummer should be asked for their terms. “ We were told that in committee,” said Councillor Flesher. “ Six and a half per cent-” “It will cost ua 4 per cent in any case,” said Councillor Winsor. Councillor J. K. Archer said that Councillor MaTtin was riding a principle too far. It was absolutely impracticable to divide the work. Councillor Cooke said that it looked as if the council would have to pay for professional etiquette. The successful architects claimed 4 per cent because they could not draw plans of ornamentation without a foundation, but they were never instructed by the council to provide an understructure. Councillor Flesher said that the conditions of the competition were that the winners should carry out the work. Councillor A. M’Kellar said that Prouse and Gummer could not charge 4 jjer cent unless the council elected to employ them. In reply to Councillor Sullivan, Councillor Winsor said that Prouse and Gummer had designed the under structure as well as the bridge. Councillor M’Kellar said that it had been understood that the War Memorial Committee would state its requirements to the council regarding the understructure; but the council had not instructed it to do so. Councillor Flesher said that there had been nothing definite on the point, but it might be well to get down to 'bedrock on the subject. At Councillor Flesher’s suggestion, the clause was held over for presentation at the next meeting.