PLAINS BRIDGES.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXV, Issue 4711, 13 June 1924, Page 2

PLAINS BRIDGES.

THE POLICY WRANGLE. RESOLUTION RESCINDED. The proposal to apply for the Gov-ernor-General’s warrant for the erection of the Pipiroa bridge and the effect of this on the bridge policy of the council was discussed at great length at the monthly meeting of the Hauraki Plains County Council on Tuesday.

The matter was introduced by Cr. Hare, who, in pursuance of a notice of motion, moved that the minute to the effect that the council. take .steps to ask for the Governor-General's warrant in respect to the Pipiroa bridge be rescinded. Cr. Hare stated that he was surprised that this had been brought up in general business after he had left the last meeting. He felt that he should have been informed that the matter was to come up when he applied for permission to leave the meeting. The council knew his attitude on the matter. The question affected his riding, a,s it already had a bridge rating area.

The motion was seconded by Cr Mayn.

Cr. Parfitt said he had intimated early in the last meeting that hfc intended to move a motion on the subject. He would like to hear tfie objections of the mover and seconder of the motion.

Cr. Hare said it. was not fair to charge the whole county with the Pipiroa bridge before making existing bridges county matters. The council had agreed not to go on with the Hikutaia bridge, so Netherton would not derive much from the scheme.

Cr. Mayn said he opposed the application for the warrant only until the Empowering Bill had gone through. There was no knowing but that when the Pipiroa bridge was built that riding might oppose the Empowering Bill. He had always been opposed to the county bridging scheme, except in the case of Kirikiri, which he realised was a county outlet. Tlie chairman said that the council had been practically unanimous in making bridges a county matter. Rating areas had been discussed until everyone wa.s sick of thfc subject. For that reason the ferries had been made a eharge on the whole county. Jf parochialism was going to have sway in the council the. whole question would have to be reconsidered. Tire Ngatea bridge rating area was a scandalous area. A stone could be thrown from the bridge to outside the are,a, yet ratepayers at Pipiroa were included The application for the warrant had been brought forward at the request of the Government, which desired to know when the council intended to go on with the proposition. Cr. McLoughlin said that when the bridge policy was formulated he was under, the impression that all bridges would he included. He now found' that unless the bridges were built under section 119 of the Public Works Act the scheme could not work. The Ngarua bridge,would have to be paid for by a special rating area until such time a,-; an empowering bill was passed by Parliament. As far as Kirikiri bridge was concerned, the council realised that it was necessary. Cr. Hayward said he had asked that the Governor-General’s warrant be granted only subject to the passing of the Empowering Bill. He still saw no reason why this should not be adopted. Cr. Parfitt said that the principal objection appeared to lie that the rating area was to be the whole county. He submitted that instead of rescinding tin resolution a motion should be brought forward to define a rating area. He was certain that when the county bridge policy was adopted there was no mention made about the Empowering Bill. If it had been that the adoption of the scheme was contingent upon the Empowering Bill, then the council had been acting dishonestly when dealing with the other local bodies'and with the Government. Cr. Madgwick said he had always maintained that tine bridge policy was unworkable. He had also maintained that he bridges should be county matters, but only atfer a poll of ratepayers. Cr. Parfitt moved as an amendment to the notice of motion that the council define the rating area ior Pipiroa bridge at the next ordinary meeting. Cr. Miller seconded. Cr. Parfitt said he did not wish to see the bridge held up. The Empowering Bill would take time. His ratepayers desired the bridge and were prepared to pay for it. They had already been waiting a dozen years. Cr. Miller said he did not want to sice the Pipiroa bridge helfl up. The Highways Board had advised the council to go ahead and not hold up the highway. A rating area would automatically come over the whole county when the Bill was passed. Cr. Hare pointed put that the Netherton Ratepayers’ Association was taking steps to block the Bill. On resuming after the tea adjournment Cr. Mayn, on receiving an answer from Cr. Parfitt that he proposed to have the bridge built under section 119 of thte Public Works Act, said that he would oppose the motion unless a poll of the ratepayers of the special rating area was taken. He would be satisfied with a postal ballot. Considerable discussion then ensued on the previous attitude of members, several charges of inconsistency being made. The chairman said that when the area was fixed the bridge could be commenced and the Empowering Bill obtained absolving the area from the rate and spreading it over the whole county Thus the construction of the bridge would not be delayed. Cr. Mayn contended that the formation of a special rating area was the beginning of the end of the bridge policy. The only solution would bte to get the Bill passed before attempting anything else. The Kirikiri bridge could also be blocked. Or. Parfitt said that he and Cr. McLoughlin had arrived at a decision regarding the rating area on the western side of the river. If Ora.

Miller and Madgwick would define the area east of the river the mattier could proceed.

Ur. Madgwick said he would not agree to any rating area whatever.

Cr. Parfitt suggested that the area be the whole of the Pipiroa and Waitakaruru ridings less that in the Ngatea bridge rating area and including a small portion of the Ngatea area outside the Ngatea) bridge area; also all Kopuarahi riding, that part of the Turua and Kerepeehi ridings not in the Puke bridge rating area, and that part of the Horahia i iding not in the Ngatea bridge rating area.

Much discussion ensued on the me.’its of this rating ai;ea.

In reply to tbfe chairman the clerk said that the rate necessary would be about one-fifth of a penny.

Cr. Hare said he would not support a rating area, unless a poll of the ratepayers was take’i. He was not opposed to bridges, but to the method of payment.

The amendment was was altered to read “That the council define the rating area at this meeting," and was then put to the meetings. Crs. Miller, Parfitt, and McLoughlin voted for it and Crs. Hayward, Hare, Nicholson, Madgwick, and Mayn voted against it.

Cr. Hayward then moved as another amendment to the original motion, "That the Governor-General’s warrant be applied for subject to the passing of the Empowering Bill.”

Cr. McLoughlin raised a point of order in that the amendment had been defeated at the previous meeting. The chairman upheld this, whereupon Cr. Madgwick moved that the eovncil use its best endeavours to have bridges made county matters before proceeding to build any further bridges in the county. This was also rutted out of order, the reason being that it was irrelevant to the motion.

The motion was then put, Crs. McLoughlin, Mayn, Nicholson, Hare, and Hayward supporting and Crs. Miller, Parfitt and Madgwick opposing.

Dr. Mayn thought that in future all bridges with a span over 20 feet long should be a chargfe over the whole county. There were many bridges in the hill portions of the county, and if these were included the ratepayers of the whole county would be more agreeable to the proposition. Cr. Madgwick objected to this, contending that the policy was originally intended to include only the bridges over the two rivers.

Cr. Mayn gave notice of motion to rescind minute 2349 and substitute a resolution embodying his contention in respect to 20ft spans, but on the clerk pointing out that it would then be too late to get the Empowering Bill introduced this coming session he withdrew his notice of motion.