BRIGHTON BRIDGE CONFERENCE FAILS.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 18448, 26 April 1928, Page 7

BRIGHTON BRIDGE CONFERENCE FAILS.

CLEARANCE QUESTION IS STUMBLING BLOCK. A deadlock; has been reached in connection with the dispute between the New Brighton Borough Council and the Citv Council regarding the clearance of the proposed new bridge over the Avon at Seaview Road. At a conference held some months ago, when the Hon G. J. Anderson, Minister of Marine. presided, the delegates present agreed to recommend to the local bodies they represented that a clearance of 6ft 6in be provided, on condition that all additional cost was borne by the City Council. The New Brighton Council, however, subsequently refused to agree to a clearance of more than sft 3in. and with the object of endeavouring to reach an agreement regarding the matter, a further conference was held on Tuesday afternoon. The contributing local bodies were represented by the following:— New Brighton Borough Council—The Mayor (Mr A. W. Owles), and Councillors T. Robins, E. A. M. Leaver, F. D. Muirson, R. A. Stokes and G. W. Bishop. City Council—The Mayor (the Rev J. K. Archer), Councillors D. G. Sullivan, M.P., and 11. T. Armstrong, M.P., the City Engineer (Mr A. R. Galbraith), and the Town Clerk (Mr J. S. Neville). Tramway Board—Messrs J. Wood (chairman), F. Thompson (general manager), and M. Wright (engineer). Ileathcote County Council—Messrs J. 11. Moore and W. Kerr. Mr Owles, who presided, said that when the previous conference concluded it was agreed to obtain an expression of opinion from the boating clubs, and Mr Sullivan was to obtain certain information from the Minister of Marine. Since then the New Brighton Council had carried a resolution that it could not agree to a 6ft 6in clearance. That meant that a deadlock had arisen. He felt the position keenly, as they could not get anywhere unless they pulled together. He failed to see what could be done. WIDENING SUGGESTED. Mr Sullivan said that at the previous conference he had asked the chairman if he thought a clearance of sft 3in would be satisfactory to the boating people, and the chairman had replied in the affirmative. Mr Owles: I thought it would be satisfactory. Mr Sullivan went on to say that he communicated that statement to the Minister of Marine and had received a reply stating that the Department was not in any better position than the local boating people to determine what clearance was sufficient. Subsequently he had informed the Department of the attitude of the boating people, and had received a reply stating that the Department would not agree to less than 6ft 6in clearance. The position now was that the City Council would not move from a 6ft 6in clearance, and it seemed equally- clear that the New Brighton Council would not agree to that clearance. In addition, the boating people were hostile to a sft 3in clearance. Consequently a deadlock had been reached, and it appeared that nothing could be done unless they agreed to the widening of the present bridge. Possibly that might suit all parties, as it would provide a wayout of the difficulty temporarily, and enable the question of clearance to be settled in the course of time. It was very unsatisfactory to leave the bridge in its present condition, as it was a source of danger to traffic, and as sensible men they ought to come to some agreement.

Mr Sullivan said he had discussed the matter with Mr Leaver, who was of opinion that probably the best plan would be to widen the bridge on the downstream side and apportion the cost among the contributing \ local bodies. He suggested that the conference should tackle the problem in that way. COMPENSATION QUESTION. Mr Archer said that the City Council had obtained a report from a thoroughly experienced and competent valuer as to the amount of compensation that would probably have to* be paid if the bridge were erected with a clearance of 6ft 6in, and the total was surprisingly low and much smaller than anyone had expected. The report of the valuer was very satisfactory from the City Council’s point of view. Mr Armstrong said that he would not be a party to spending a threepennybit of the City Council’s money on widening the present bridge and leaving it at its present height. If the bridge were widened it would mean that for the next twenty-five or thirty j'ears the whole of the population would be denied the use of the river for the purposes of boating. He was of opinion that the present bridge should be left alone until a new council was elected in New Brighton. COMPROMISE SUGGESTED. Mr Leaver said he was surprised to hear the statement from Mr Armstrong because the first suggestion to widen the bridge came from the City Council itself. Mr Archer explained that the suggestion had been made by himself personally, and not on behalf of the City Council. Mr Leaver said that he had been strongly opposed to widening the present bridge, but if something of that nature were not done, where were they going to get to? As far as he could see there would be no improvement at all unless the bridge were widened. To test the feeling of the conference he moved:—“That as the New Brighton Borough Council does not agree to a 6ft 6in clearance for the new bridge, this meeting of representatives recom-

mend to the local bodies interested that the present bridge be widened on the south side.” The reason for the apparent change in his position, said Mr Leaver, was that he could not see them getting a step forward unless they agreed to widen the present bridge. Not one member of the New Brighton Council approved of a 6ft 6in clearance, although some were willing to agree to it. If the present bridge were widened it would give a lapse of a few years, and then they would be able to see if the -river was needed for a water-way. At the present time the whole thing was purely visionary, and if they waited a few years they would be able to see whether that vision was likely to be realised or not. He was satisfied that the New Brighton Council would find ways and means of widening the bridge without touching the loan money. Mr Archer seconded the motion pro forma. Air Muirson said that it would only be a waste of money to widen the existing bridge. BOATS READY TO USE THE RIVER. “I won’t support the motion in any shape or form,” said Mr Owles. “We’ve spent about £7OO on the matter now, and that will be lost if we forgo the construction of a new bridge. There are four boats waiting to go up the river as soon as the bridge is raised.” Mr Armstrong expressed the opinion that the City Council would never agree to anything less than a 6ft 6in clearance. Mr Galbraith said that the existing bridge could be widened on the downstream side at a cost of about £2400. A carriageway of 20 feet clear of the tram lines could be provided. He urged the conference to look ahead at least half a century. If they widened the present timber bridge it would last for another forty years. One advantage, however, was that if it was decided later to construct a new bridge, the piles of the timber bridge could be drawn, and practically all the materials used elsewhere. Personally he would rather see the bridge widened than left as it was at present. In reply to Mr Archer. Mr Leaver said that the New Brighton Council had not considered the question of widening the bridge. Mr Armstrong said that if the present bridge were widened it would stop there until the piles rotted, and boats would be unable to get up the river. To spoil the river for the boating

i people for thirty or forty years was i nothing short of a crime. “If the motion is carried we will be ■ no further ahead,” remarked Mr Owles. i “What if it is not carried?” asked Mr Leaver. i Mr Owles: We would be no further • ahead then. ; THE PRIVY COUNCIL. Mr Sullivan said that perhaps it would be better to let the Privy Coun- ; cil decide the matter. Mr Armstrong: The present bridge is ; a source of danger, and the Govern- ’ ment may erect a new bridge and send i the bill to us. ) Mr Sullivan: They can’t do that witnI out legislation. “The Government would jolly soon i do that,” replied Mr Armstrong, i Mr Sullivan said they were drifting into an intolerable position. If no one i was prepared to do anything at all he thought the matter should be fought out in the law courts. Mr Archer said that if the New Brighton Cquncil wanted a bridge different from what the other local bodies would agree; to, it should pay for it itself. That would be cheaper than going to law. He felt sure that within a year a considerable stretch of the : river would be improved. The voting for the motion resulted in 1 a tie, and the chairman gave his cast- : ing vote against it, remarking that 1 they were in the same position as they wer« in previously. The representatives of the Ileathcote County Council and the Tramway Board voted for the motion, together with Messrs Archer, Sullivan and Leaver.