HIGHWAYS COUNCIL.

Press, Volume LXI, Issue 18365, 24 April 1925, Page 7

HIGHWAYS COUNCIL.

DISTRICT 14. A meeting of District Highways Council No 14 Was hßld yesterday. Present: Messrs F Langbein, Resident Engineer P.W.I), (chairman), and J. Jjeslie (Paparua County), II A Knight (Malvern County), John Cunningham (KUesmero County) J. 0. Coop (Wairewu County), R. W. Hawke (VVa,roairi County). Alex Thompson (Springs Couiitv), P. J. Andrew (Selwyn Oounty), i. Horrcll (Rangioru County), G. T. Mulcock (Halswell County), J. D. Wylio (fc-°«ai County), J. A. Gcllety (Mt. Herbert County), C. Flavell (Heathcote County), 1. Smith (Heathcote County). It v/ 03 decided to send a protest to tne Main Highways Board in respec. ot the nonintrusion of the road from Tcddingtou to the Lyttelton Borough boundary as a main highway and ask for reconsideration of the Board's decision in the matter. Mr J. I). Bruce, representative of the South Island on the Board, said that the main objection to the road was its grade. The Council next discussed the question of that portion of the ChriStshurch-LytteHon road which traverses the Heathcote County, viz., from the Heathcote Bridge to Maffey s coiner. The chairman stated that tne Council was requested by the Board to mako a recommendation in the matter respecting the ui.Ov-atioft of maintenance. It has been suggested by the Council that tiie cost of future maintenance should be borne bv the yumncr Borough Council 40 per cent., Highways Board 33 per cent., Heathcole County 27 per cent. Mr Fiavell said that the Heathcote County Council was in agreement with the allocation proposed. Jir Nicholson said that the bumncr Borough Council had never objected to paying it's share of the maintenance of the road, but was opposed to paying anything for construction. Ho mainmmeu that an improvement could not be classified under the heading of maintenance, and teat Sumner was justified in not choosing to pay the allocation stated. He also drew attention to the use made of the road by Lyttelton people. Mr Flavell stated in reply that the road was absolutely vital to Sumner, but Lyttolton was not in the same position. After further discussion Jar Horrell moved that the Council recommend that the allocation be as set out. The motion was seconded by Mr Hawke. Mr Hay moved as an amendment that the future ai.ocation bei—Sumner 31) per cent., Lytteiton lu per cent., Christchurcn 27 per cent., Highways Board 33 per cent. Tins was seconded by Mr Coop and lost, and the motion carried.