KEREPEEHI ROADING.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXVI, Issue 4865, 14 August 1925, Page 3

KEREPEEHI ROADING.

LOAN POLL GRANTED. QUESTION OF SUBSIDIES. Kerepeehi reading matters occupied the attention of the Hauraki Plains County Council for a considerable time on Tuesday. The secretary of the Kerepeehi Ratepayers’ Association wrote advising that a representative meeting of settlers had unanimously decided to ask the council to take the necessary steps to raise a loan to carry out a comprehensive scheme bf road construction in the Kerepeehi riding. The latepayers would appreciate some “pep” put into the project, and would remind the council of its expressed willingness to' make the scheme an urgent one. Cr. Nicholson moved that the clerk be instructed to take a poll of ratepayers ais soon as possible. Seconded by Cr. Madgwick, who urged that the matter be pushed on as quickly as possible. Cr. Mayn advocated deferring the matter until the attitude of the Highways Board in regard to the subsidies was known. The motion was carried. Mr N. Davidson, on behalf bf the association, waited upon the council and asked that it make every effort to obtain a greater subsidy from the Main Highways Board than the usual because of the extra work in bringing the road from an impassable clay road to one of main highway standards. Cr. Mayn moved, and Cr. Hare seconded, that the request be granted, and that the council’s representative on the District Council bring up the matter at the next meeting. Cr. J. C. Miller, the council’s representative on the district council, said that there was very little chance of ,the Highways Board granting the request, as it would be creating a precedent that would be quoted all over the rest of the Dominion. The board had to consider the matter as it affected all classes of country, and was of the opinion that rich land such as the Hauraki Plaint should carry its burden. If this class of land would not do so, how could the barren lands through which some highways passed be expected to bear the usual share of the cost of highways. Cr. Miller pointed out that this view had been explained by him to the county council, and it had been agreed that the county should bear its burden on the usual basis for the highway from the Puke bridge to Haley’s corner. He explained the position" in regard tb the road from Haley’s corner to the county boundary, for which a greater subsidy had been voted because the land traversed was barren and nonrate productive. He did not feel inclined to go to the district council and back down on his previous statement that the county would bear its fair share. Cr. Madgwick said that he also* would not like to tell the Highways Board that the Hauraki Plains was too poor to do as much as the greater part of the Dominion. It could be pointed out, however, that unless a bigger subsidy was forthcoming it would probably be a long time before the work could be done. The settlers of the Turua-Netherton road would be glad to isee the route of the highway diverted to their road, and were prepared to lay it down with bitumen if the Highways Board could be induced to alter the route. Cr. Parfitt said that to his mind the greatest advantage of the main highways scheme was in the grants for maintenance. The annual grants for maintenance were, to his mind, much more important than the grant for the initial laying down of the road, and whatever steps were taken to get! increased grants should be in the direction of those for maintenance. Mr Walton said that the matter had been discussed at great length at a recent conference of members of county councils held in Hamilton. The conference had adopted a resolution urging the Government to amend the Main Highways Act, 1922, to provide for contributions, by the Main Highways Board towards the cost of construction and maintenance of main highways' on a basis of not less than 50 per cent. and. up to 100 per cent., as circumstances warranted. He would urge- the councH to support this move to its utmost. Cr. McLoughlin said that the council’s representative on the district 'council could point out that the request for an increased subsidy was a reasonable one in view of the district’s disadvantages in roadmaking. The decision of the Hamilton conference could be quoted as the view of over 20 counties that a,difference in the amounts of subsidies should be made as circumstances , warranted. It was decided, that the council approach the Highways Council for a greater subsidy than £1 for £1 on the construction of Pekapeka and Wairau Roads, and that the Lands Department be asked for a further subsidy of £1 for £1 on Wairau Road.