THE PURIRI BRIDGE.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXIII, Issue 4383, 27 February 1922, Page 3

THE PURIRI BRIDGE.

THAMES-PLAINS CONFERENCE DIVERGENCE OF OPINION. NO AGREEMENT REACHED. ' A conference between the Thames and Hauraki Plains county councils was held in the Ngatea Hall on Friday. The conference was the result of a deadlock with the two councils with reference to the construction of a proposed bridge at Puriri. Mr J. C. Miller (chairman of the Hauraki Plains County Council) was elected to; the chair. The following were present Messrs W. G. Hayward, C. W. Harris, A. Chatfield ,T. McLoughlin, C. W. Parfitt, and E. Walton (clerk), representing the Hauraki Plains County Council, and Messrs H. Lowe (chairman Thames Council), J. McCormick, A. Alley, W. Brunton, B. Faithfull, J. Nicol, R. Cox,,and H. T. G. McElroy (clerk), representing the Thames County Council. THAMES COUNTY’S PORTION. Mr Miller asked the chairman of the’ Thames County Council exactly what they wished to discuss'. He understood that the warrant for. the bridge would not be granted, but an amicable arrangement could be made or a further poll taken-. Mr Lowe said he thought the Thames' councillors had come over to hear what the Hauraki Plains coum cillors had to say. Outlining the events leading up to the conference, he said that a poll had been taken over a special area for the bridge. Owing to a technicality and the Hauraki Plains County coming into being a little later made the previous process null- and Void. He understood that the Thames County Council had approached the Hauraki Plains Council and placed the whole matter before them and got their consent to go on with the bridge. As far as the Thames County Council was concerned they had received no deputations to refrain from going bn with the work, but received strong deputations to expedite the work. The Hauraki Plains County Council, after hearing the deputations against the bridge, and not consulting the Thames Counr oil, had asked the Minister to » def er the warrant. He believed that the affair should have been straightened out in a ■short time,-but-in the meantime the- Hauraki Plains County Council had taken other measures. The Thames views were that the warrant should be issued. The question was whether an amicable agreement should be reached and the work gone on with or whether it should be terminated. “INNOCENCE ABROAD.’’

Mr Miller said that the Hauraki Plains County Council had twice asked for a conference. He asked the Hauraki Plains clerk to read some correspondence. The Hauraki Plains Council had agreed to go on with the bridge, thinking it was the wish of the majority, but they had been; wrong then, as later they had found out that the majority was against the bridge being built under the present conditions. Mr Walton read lengthy correspondence dealing with negotiations regarding the proposed Puriri bridge. The letters have already been published in the. “Gazette.!” Mr Miller said t.hat the cprrespondence showed exactly what the position was. The Minister had suggested that another poll should be taken over the area or an amicable arrangement should be reached. Mr Lowe said those present 'had heard most of the correspondence. He thought the crux was whether they would again take a poll over that area. When the Hauraki Plains Council had agreed it had done so with its eyes open. The letter to tne Minister read as if the Plains Council was the ewe lamb—innocence abroad —and the Thames Cotincil after the skin. But the Minister did not know that the Hauraki Plains Cotftcil was lieing advised by a fully fledged lawyer. . THREAT TO KIRIKIRI. The T.hames Council was not taking advantage of a young child: which the Hauraki Plains Council was. made out to be. Twenty-two of the settlers in a petition against the bridge had signed a petitioh for the bridge. No deputation had previously waited on the Thames Council either for or against the bridge. Later p, deputation had aSked the Thames Council to push on with the work and they had promised to dp so. The Hauraki Plains: was asking for a poll for the bridge., It was also fair to ask a poll for every other bridge on the Waihpu. He asked “ How many brid-t ges. are you going to get The Thames Council had made an agreement for another bridge. There were a number in Thames opposed to the Kirikiri bridge, and lie could get numbers to sign a petition against it.. Even if the grant for the bridge had been obtained they could hold up the'Kirikiri bridge. Mr. Harris thought the speaker was in error. The deputation had waited on the Hauraki Plains County Council, who had asked the Thames Council for a conference.

FEELINGS OF DISTRUST. Mr Lowe held that as 'a local body they had no right to go behind another local body without giving a copy of the correspondence. Mr McLoughlin : Why did you not grant us a conference when we asked for it ? Mr Lowe: There needn’t have been any friction had each local body acted as it should have aisted. He was not an advocate for the Puriri bridge, but he was an advocate for fair play. '' It my Council had taken my advice w)ien the letter was received,” he said, “ you would have bad a conference. Unfortunately there were too many feelings of distrust from one local body to another. A local body should not be afraid to meet another in conference. I think we will go away much better friends, and we. may find you wishing to amalgamate with us again. Now there is no dispute as to site,” he continued. “When a few men take on a large proposition they should be helped. You made the provision yourselves that the tolls

were to go to the maintenance and interest on sinking fund. . According to your chairman’s own showing the Council had made a mistake.. The whole trouble was that the toll' was to go to the maintenance of the bridge instead of going to relieve the rate* payers to liquidate the interest on singing fund. tf that is all that is between its, then we can wipe that out in anj instant.” Mr Miller, to Mr Lowe : What, do you think of the Minister? Mr Lowe : I told him plainly and he agreed with me. Mr McCormick said that the Hauraki Plain's Council between it was' working on the majority. But a lot of, charges had taken place, and was it'fair for petitioners to ask that the poll taken some time before be null and void? Mr Lowe read the contents of the voting paper used at’ the poll In question. He said it did not specify what the tolls were' to be devoted to. He read a circular which said that all tolls should go to liquidate the interest on sinking fund. He also read considerable correspondence. The conference then adjourned for luncheon. QUESTION OF POLL, Continuing after the luncheon adjournment Mr Lowe said the only dissatisfaction was how the tolls were to be used. If that was the only objection and they-were satisfied that' the tolls were to go to the interest and sinking fund the. matter may be/ settled.

Mr NicoU: Can. we hear the petition presented to the Plains Council ? Mr Walton : It is about the same as the copy sent to the Thames County Council except the names. Mr Harris‘said he could not follow Mr Lowe’s arguments that if a poll for the Puriri bridge was to be taken, polls should be taken for other brid-, ges. He contended that the conditions were, different. After a proposition - 'having been put to the ratepayers and carried, they! should be allowed to put the proposals again under different conditions, and over the same rating rating area. If the alterations were to be made in the tolls the ratepayers should be allowed to decide under the altered conditions. The only way was -to hold a fresh poll. Mr Nicoll said the understanding why the Thames Cprfntiy Council agreed with the Kirikiri bridge was that the Puriri bridge would be gone on with. Mr Lowe sa/id if it was necessary to take a poll on one bridge every agreement with them was not worth much if polls were not taken on al l bridges. LEGAL OPINION. ' Mr Walton said the Act provided that if a local authority wished to construct a ferry or bridge benefiting the district it could force its hand by certain procedure. If any objection was lodged a commission could be appointed. Mr McElroy said Messrs Russell Campbell and McVeagh, solicitors, 1 Auckland,'had given an opinion that the Puriri bridge could be taken under a section of the Act. If both local bodies could agree a poll was not required. Mr Lowe, asked was there any reason why the two Council’s should go back on agreements. Mr Miller was of the opinion, that they should be guided by the ratepayers. The Hauraki Plains Council thought when it 1 gave its permission that it was in the interests of the majority. It appeared to him that the Thames Courtcili intended refusing a conference till ’ there was a

deadlock and could not go any further without a conference. Mr McCormick agreed with Mr Miller that he was right if there was a majority, but lie contended there was no majority. Mr Cox thought it was not fair that a section of the district had sanc-tioned-the proposal, and new . ones came into the district and > helped to upset it. Mr McLoughlin thought if a conference 'had been granted when first asked for, the bridge would have been nearly completed now. “ You have been putting all the 'fault on to us, Mr Lowe, but you must take some of the blame yourselves.” Mr Lowe asked was the Plains Council to hear . the contending parties, to settle the matter amicably or have another poll ? No ratepayers should be committed to any loan without a voice in the matter, but of their representatives . came to an agreement they could hot go back on the agreement. Mr Harris said they did. not know what the bulk of the ratepayers thought, and that was an argument for another poll’., Mr Parfitt understood that .the contending parties would be present. They must determine if the Puriri bridge would be of use. If the Kirikiri bridge would serve those areas they could scrap the Puriri bridge without any breach' of faith. The new 1 ratepayers had as much right to upset the poll as the Thames Council had ofi ignoring the poll. He thought the Kirikiri bridge would •serve the County as a whole, and would be the cheaper for the County.

I HOW MANY BRIDGES, I Mr Lowe said the Thames Council diid not ignore the poll, but was only 1 due to a technicality. The petition in 'question contained many of the sig-j j natorjes of the first petition. 1 Mr. McCormick said it . was unfair that the ratepayers should allow the Thames Council to spend a great deal of money and then come along at a late hour and try to upset it. j Mr Hayward took exception to the - remarks of the chairman ■ of the Thames County Council, which had ' done the side-stepping, which' had been alleged ofl the Plains Council. ■ He thought a poll should be ! taken in all . cases of such imi portance as a bridge over the Wai-i I hou River. He did not think the i Plains Council would countenance all I the tolls going to thei interest! on 1 sinking fund. Another poll was the ' only thing for it. I Mr Lowe: What would happen of I the Government would not' grant tolls ? Mr Hayward: That would open another question. Mr Miller agreed that a poll should ' be taken. I Mr Faithful did not agree with a poll as most of the ratepayers on the • Thames side were in flavour of the ' bridge. Mr Alley was of the opinion that if a bridge at Puriri was vetoed, all settlers stay in their own county. Mr Lowe thought the Plains Council would have had the contending parti ies present. An argument then ensued which , . body had ' called the conference. j Mr Brunton suggested Wharepoa ( for a bridge site. A conclusion should be come to whether they wanted one bridge or two bridges. A MOTION SUGGESTED. , I > Mr McCormick suggested a proposal that the Hauraki Plains County Counr cil agree to the tolls being devoted i to the interest on sinking fund. Also that if a poll is Jtaken on this proposal that polls also be taken for every other bridge proposal; also that it is understood and agreed that the Hauraki Plains County having withdrawn from the agreement regarding

the Puriri bridge that the Thames County be relieved •of their promise to contribute, towards the Kirikiri bridge without a poll being taken on the latter project. Mr Harris objected to such a resolution. He was surprised at such a proposition. Mr Parfitt took exception to. the proposal, saying there was a sting in the tall of it. If there was any honour lost it was on the part of the Thames County Council. Mr Lowe said, seeing that the majority Of the tolls would be borne by the Plains, County, they would be having an extra load on their people and 'a small extra load on those in the Thames County, but it was those latter who were kicking up the most dust. There was np need for bridges in the Thames County, as they had river, road, and railway access. Mr McCormick said the matter should be decided at that conference, and if they conferred with the coni tending parties, they would not be wrangling this time next year. Mr McLoughlin suggested giving Thames Council a? decided answer at the special, meeting next Wednesday. 7 Mr Jlayward:. In the event of another poll, who would- pay tpie cost of it? Mr Walton said each would hold its own poll and pay own costs. - Mr Lowe suggested the Plains representatives should put the matter to their Council and consider it at its next meeting. Mr Miller suggested holding a meeting of raepayers in that area. The Thames Council Could do the same, in its area.

Mr Ha/yward: Don’t you tjhink it would be advisable to have the representatives of the other Council, present ? Mr ’-Miller,: I was. going to suggest that., Mr Miller thought the objectors should have gone to the Thames Council. He had told the objectors that. Mr Hayward proposed that a poll be taken over the two Counties and . Borough, naming two different sites, Puriri and Kirikiri. They could not afford to build two bridges. Mi- McCormick did not agree to the proposal. - There was no seconder.. Mr Lowe said the Thames County and Borough and the Hauraki Plains County had agreed on Kirikiri, and the Thames and Hauraki Plains Counties had agreed on Puriri. . Mr Chatfield referring gates said no permission had been given to erect toll gates. Mr Lowe said in the event of the Minister agreeing, to a toll-gate oh Che bridge the Hauraki Plains Council ■should agree to the tolls being flii verted by the ratepayers. Mr Miller. thought his Council would not agree to the tolls going to the interest on sinking fund. The conference concluded’ without any definite agreement being reached.