PIPIROA BRIDGE.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXV, Issue 4651, 21 January 1924, Page 2

PIPIROA BRIDGE.

A BOROUGH CONTRIBUTION. CONFERENCE AT THAMES. A conference between the Hauraki Plains County Council and the Thames Borough Council was held at Thames on Friday afternoon. The Mayor of Thames (Mr T. W. Rhodes, M.F.) presided, and representing the borough with him were Crs. E. N. Miller, A- S. Hetherington, A. Christie, D. Mackay, H. Eaddy, and J. Morley. The chairman of the Hauraki Plains County Council (Or. JC. Miller), Crs. C. W. Parfitt, C. W. Harris, and the county clerk (Mr E. Walton) represented the county council.

Mr Rhodes in opening the meeting said that the conference was purely tin informal one to hear the views of the Plains County Council, which body had asked the Borough of Thames for a contribution towards the cost of erecting a bridge at Pipiroa. The' borough council had stated that, it could not do this, but would be pleased to hear why and how it should contribute. Ur. J. C. Miller said that the Plains council desired to know if the boiough council was prepared to pay a contribution. If this was agreed to the amount could be discussed.

In reply to the Mayor Cr. J. C. Miller said that the borough was the only body that, was being asked to contribute. The bridge would cost £12,700, but there was a Government subsidy of £ for £. The county council suggested that the Thames Bor, ough should contribute 25 per cent. flie Mayor asked what reason the county had for asking for a contribution, and also whether the borouga ha<l any authority to do so. Cr. J C. Miller said that the borough had agreed to come in with the Kiiikiri bridge. The Pipiroa bridge would bring in a greater area, and in addition would make the route to Auckland much shorter. A great increase in the amount -of trade to Thames would be caused by the opening of. the bridge. The Plains council felt sure that the borough would be well repaid for the 25 per cent, of half the cost of the bridge by this increased amount of trade. Cr. C. W. Parfitt said that the Pipiroad bridge would open up an equal amount of land that would do trade with Thames as the Kirikiri bridge would do. The Jjorough was prepared to pay for Kirikfri, and it would be very good business for it to contribute to Pipiroa. In addition, it would mean a very saving in mileage on the run to Auckland.

Cr. C- W. Harris said that the distance from Wiatakaruru through Ngatea was too great for farmers to visit Thames, but with the Pipiroa. bridge opened there would ne a steady stream of trade to Thames.

The Mayor asked if there were any legal reason.

Dr. J. C. Miller pointed out that bridges were county matters, and « la’-ge area of the Plains would not benefit from it as from the Kiriki’i bridge. Mr E. Walton said that there was no legal reason—members had shown business reasons. There was no legal reason why the borough should not contribute. Section 119 of the Public Works Act would cover the case just as for the Kirikiri bridge. Considerable discussion took place on the legal aspect of the case. The county chairman pointed out that the case was the same as Kirikiri. Mr Rhodes said that this was open to argument, and in any case the conditions of Kirikiri were thrust on to the borough. He asked if the Plains county would be agreeable to taking the Kauaeranga bridge in and making the three bridges one matter. This request was on a par with the request that the borough should contribute towards Pipiroa bridge. Or. A. S. Hetherington asked if, in the event of the borough being prepared to cnotribute, the county would be prepared to accept payment in instalments.

Mr Walton thought that the bridge would surely take several years to erect, so the contributions could possibly be spread over different financial years.

Mr Rhode,s said the borough was prepared to help if possible. He asked if a smaller contribution than that asked would be accetpable. Dr. Hethertington asked if any other local body would be joined. Cr. J. C. Miller said that the views of the Plains County had been stated, and they would be pleased to hear those of the borough council. The Mayor said that the borough council had not considered the matter. The borough had been asked! for a contribution, but having made no provision on the estimates the request had to be turned down. Before deciding, the borough would want to ki.rw what the county thought of pooling the three bridges and if any other local body would be joined. Cr. J. C. Miller said that the county bad not- thought anything about the Keuaeranga bridge, and did not contemplate joining any other local body. Cr. Parfitt said that the Ngatea bridge would have to be considered as a set-off if the Kauaeranga bridge was included. Ur. Harris said that it was in the. county scheme to make the Ngatea ami Puke bridges inclusive in the bridge scheme. Cr. Christie isaid that the borough would have to consider the matter thoroughly.

3r. E. N. Miller said that he had always looked favourably upon the Pipiroa bridge proposal, but he did not think the borough contribution should be as large as.that alsked for. He could see no reason why the Thornes Countj- Council should not be included, Just as it was for the Kirikiri bridge. There was a point concerning the maintenance of the roads between the two bridges, and he asked what guarantee was there that the Pi-iins county would not ask the borough to contribute towards the maintenance of the main road. The fact that it had been agreed to help with

the bridges might be used as a lever in that direction. He had heard a rumour that the Plains council was. net doing its utmost to push Kiri» kiri bridge, and he would like an assurance that this proposal would not be hindered. Another point he would ■ like to mention: was that when the borough wa,s being asked for a contribution towards Kirikiri it waspointed out that this would be a bettor route to Auckland, so the borough coiwicil had agreed to make a large - contribution. The Pipiroa bridge had not then been mentioned, and if the borough council had thought that later on it would be asked to contribute towards the Pipiroa bridge t would not have agreed to share . equally with the Plains county the cost o f Kirikiri bridge. Cr, Parfitt said that he did not think the Plains county would go back on the Kirikiri bargain if no help for the Pipiroa bridge was available. He did tiot think the council could legally give a binding assurance that the borough would not be asked to help to maintain the road. The present council could not bind future councils. '"’T Cr. J. C, Miller said that the borough could be assured that the Plains county was doing all it could to P usll on with the Kirikiri bridge. Cr. C. W. Harris said that in his opinion the Thames county had agreed to a very fair contribution to . Kirikiri bridge, but only a very small indirect benefit would accrue to that county from the Pipiroti brhlge it would not be fair to ask ’ that body for a contribution. The ' • town of Thames was in a different ;; position, as it would receive great dL rect benefit. - - Or. A. s. Hethertington said he was favourable to the proposalbur did not think the borough could $ contribute as much as was asked He would prefer to see a commission allocate the cast. Mr Rhodes said he was glad to havtUi ’ heard the views of the Plains county/h - No definite answer could be made til the borough council had the matter at its next meeting. Cr. J. C. Miller asked the Mayor if the county could consider the quest for pooling ,the three bridges af .. definite one. Mr Rhodes replied that he had net/ ’iniended it as a direct request & this stage. ’ ; ‘