PROPOSED PURIRI BRIDGE

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXII, Issue 4331, 17 October 1921, Page 1

PROPOSED PURIRI BRIDGE

THE HISTORY REVIEWED 1 . BY PLAINS COUNTY COUNCIL The history of the proposed Puriri bridge across the Waihou at Puriri, between the Thames and Hauraki Plains counties, was- reviewed a<t a meeting of the Hauraki Plains County Council at Ngatea on Monday, in the form of the following letter, dated October 7, 1921, which was sent by .the County clerk (Mr E. Walton) to the Minister for Public Works, the Hon. J. G. Coates :

“Oh July 25 last I wrote to you asking that a warrant ;n regard to Puriri bridge should, be deferred, pending a conference between the Thames and Hauraki Plains County Councils, at which all objections of the ratepayers could be heard and considered.

“I wrote to the Thames County Council', asking it to meet my Council in conference, but the former replied that it could not see the need for a conference, and declined to meet, us. My Council, at its next meeting, discussed tjiis reply and came to the conclusion that it was not a considerered one,, and instructed me to renew the request for a < enferenre. at at which the objections of ratepayers could be considered. I did so, and received a further reply from the Thames County Council, again declining to meet my Council in conference. This second refusal was considered at last meeting of my Council, when I was instructed to write to you and put the whole position as known to my Council, before , you.

“ In order to do so,, it will be necessary to go back tp March, 1920. “Prior to the Ist April, 1920, the northern end of this county was included in the Thames County, and on t,he 26th March, 1920, the Thames County Council held a poll over a special rating area upon a proposal to erect Puriri Bridge, with a tollgate thereon. The proposal was carried by the bare number of votes required.. On the Ist April, some five days after the poll, this County came into being. Some months later, the Chairman and Clerk of the Thames County Council interviewed me, and informed me that they had been advised that as a special rate had not been struck over the Puriri Bridge Special Rating Area before the 31st March, 1920, the Thames County Council' had f not the power to do so after that date, but could only deal with the portion of such area remainring in the Thames County, They said that the simplest method pf giving effect to the poll would be to proceed under section 119 of the Public Works Act, 1908, and ask for the issue of the Governor - General’s warrant authorising the construction of the bridge. They stated that such proceeding would require the formal consent of my council. None of the circumstances surrounding the poll were discussed. At a later date the

Thames County Council wrote to my

Council, asking it to consent to the issue of the warrant. The request was considered at a meeting of my Council, which thought that the provision that the whole of the receipts from the tolls on the bridge would be devoted to. the payment of interest and sinking fund was not a fair one, and it agreed to give its consent, provided that, the receipts from the tolls were devoted first to the cost of maintenance.

“ I wish to stress here the fact that my Council did not know of the circumstances under which the poll was taken, and believed the statements of the Thames County Clerk that the formal consent was necessary to give effect to a poll which was taken by the Thames County Council, and which was likely to lapse through a technicality.

“My Council was a new’lyl-formed body, which was not, conversant.with County matters in this district. I may say that two-thirds of this County was never in Thames County, such portion having been cut off from the Ohinemuri County. The alteration in the disposal of the tolls was asked for simply because my Council thought that this method was ,the fairer oneIt did not then know how vital the question of t,he toll was at the poll. However, my consent was given, subject 1.0 the alteration in the disposal of the t,oils, and this alteration was agreed to without a comment by the Thames County Council, which did not bring under our. notice 'the importance of the variation, but f'oi warded the formal notice under section 119, and aJlso a consent for signature by my Council. This was done without further discussion. "At the time, no particular publicity was given tp the above correspondence, and no section of the ratepayers affected approached my Council to oppose the construction of the bridge under section 119 until a muon later .date. I presume if took some time for the ratepayers 'to realise what had occurred.

“ However, at the time 1 wrote to you, in July, a petition had been received by my council. The consideration of it was deferred until a conference could be arranged with' the Thames' County Council. That conference has been denied my Council, so at last meeting it received three deputations. Two presented petitions against the erection of 1 the bridge without a further poll and one did not present any petition but appeared and spoke in favour of the project being gone on with as at present. Of the two petitions one contained 33 signatures, and was presented by a ratepayer of the Thames County portion of this special area, and. .the other one, signed by 48 ratepayers', was presented by a ratepayer of the Hauraki Plains County portion of such area. One petition was very full. It gave the history bf. the poll in March, 1920 ; it. showed how essential a part, of the toll .was in carrying the

said poll; it set forth a long letter from the Thames County Chairman, which letter contains a statement that th.e toll gate would be a means of reducing the rate, and t,hat 'the whole of the tolls collected —without any deduction whatever —.would be devoted to the payment of interest and sinking fund ; it said that such statement was the means of carrying the poll, and that .the ratepayers reliecT. on the chairman’s statement that the tolls would be sufficient without the collection of a rate; it stated that the petitioners were off opinion that the correct course to pursue was for both the local bodies to take another poll on the proposal as altered. “At the Council meeting when the deputations were heard, one of the deputations opposing the present procedure challenged the deputation supporting the application for the warrant to agree to another poll' and abide by the result, and offered cb contribute to the cost of the poll, but the challenge was not accepted. “ My Council wishes to give effect to the will, of the majority of the ratepayers in the matter. There is no dispute as to the site, nor as tp the nature of this bridge. The only question is whether the burden should be imposed on the ratepayers, and that is the question which my Council thinks, should be determined by the ratepayers themselves. A further poll would clear up the matter, and would not prevent the Thames County Council again applying ®pr a warrant after the further poll if it considered such course advisable.

“I have endeavoured to set out. above the facts which came to my Council’s knowledge after its consent had been given, and which induced it to ask for a conference with the Thames County Council, and to ask you to defer the issue of the warran I ’. My Council would be very glad if you could give it some direction in the matter.”

A reply to the above has not yet been received from the Minister.