PIPIROA BRIDGE.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXX, Issue 5501, 15 November 1929, Page 3

PIPIROA BRIDGE.

FUND FOR ERECTION. WHOLE COUNTY CONTRIBUTE. After a great deal of discussion at yesterday’s meeting of the Hauraki Plains County Council on the Pipiroa Bridge question a decision was reached Jjo'set aside £looo.a year out of the County Fund Account for the bliilding of the structure, and to stress the need for a greater subsidy. The matter was introduced by a letter from Mr F. S. Dyson, of the No. 2 District Highway Council, who wrote advising that the Main Highways Board was agreeable to paying a subsidy of >£2 for £1 on expenditure up to £lO,OOO and £3 for £1 in excess of that sum for the erection of the proposed Pipiroa bridge. The board was not able to make funds available immediately, but would give preference to an application on next year’s Estimates. If the council would put in hand the preparation of plans and all preliminary steps now, it would probably be in a position to proceed with the work as soon as the Estimates were dealt with next year. The chairman said that in his opinion the time had arrived when the council should move in the matter. He would move that the particulars asked for be supplied to the Public Works Department, and that the council set aside the sum of £7OO a year out of the profits of the Pipiroa ferry to form a fund to build the bridge. He thought the subsidy was a satisfactory one. Cr. Reid asked if the Thames Borough Council’s offer of £750 was still good. The chairman said he anticipated no difficulty, as the Borough Council had given a promise and was honour bound to fulfil it. It had never been repudiated, and he did not think there was any doubt of this being done. He was prepared to embody it as a proviso in his resolution, for he was confident that the money would be forthcoming when requested. Cr. Reid doubted the wisdom of depending on this grant, as conditions had changed in the Thames borough. Even if the motion was amended by the chairman as he suggested, he would not support it. He would, however, support it if the money was to come from the General Account, and not from any particuular fund. Cr. Parfitt skid it was unlikely that the Thames Borough Council would repudiate its agreement, and if it did the borough could be forced to contribute. He was of the opinion that the annual allocation should be £lOOO a year. On the latest estimate of £14,200 the Plains Council’s proportion would which at £7OO a year would take five years to accumulate. He would like to see the council set aside £lOOO a year and not accept the present subsidy but fight for a bigger one while the money was accumulating. Cr. Harris said that he was prepared to try £lOOO a year. Cr. Reid said he would second the motion provided the sum was £7OO a year. Cr. Motion raised the question of the present bridge rating areas, and the chairman said that he to move a further resolution to deal with those matters. Cr. Madgwick wanted the Kopu Ferry ■ approach roads and Puriri Ferry approach roads loans also spread over the whole country. On the provisions of the Act being read it was shown that this was not possible,- as the sums involved exceeded £lOO in each case.

Cr. Madgwick urged relieving these special rating areas to the extent of the £lOO, -which would be spread over the whole county by charging it to the General Account. Cr. Reid opposed this, contending that it was unfair to load the whole county with a special loan raised by one district for its own benefit. Cr. McDuff also opposed Cr. Madgwick’s suggestion, as the loans he mentioned were not for- bridges, but for roads. For the benefit of Cr. Mayn, who had just arrived, the chairman’s motion, altered to read, as follows, was read : “That the council set aside £7OO per annum from the General Account as a nucleus of a fund for the construction of the Pipiroa bridge, provided the £750 promised by the Thames Borough Council is still available.” As an amendment Cr. Parfitt moved that the sum be £lOOO a year, and that the Highways Board be asked to subsidise at £3 for £l. He was of the opinion that the Highways Board would eventually give a greater subsidy, as big sums were being voted for bridges on main highways in other parts )Of the Dominion. - Cr. Reid held out so little hope of the Thames Borough Council paying its £750 that he desired the provision removed from the motion. Cr. Madgwick seconded Cr. Parfitt’s amendment and advocated withdrawing the original motion. ( Cr. Fisher said he would support the bridge on condition that the proposed Kaihere bridge was made a charge on the whole county. The chairman pointed out that there was a motion on the books moved by Cr. A. Chatfield and seconded by himself that the Kaihere bridge, among others stated, be made a charge on the whole county. This had never been, rescinded. Cr. Majrn drew attention to the losses sustained by the other ferries in the county, whereupon Cr. Harris said that he knew £lOOO could be set aside as Cr. Parfitt desired, but he had moved for £7OO on taking into consideration the losses sustained by the other ferries. Cr. Madgwick suggested an alteration to the motion, and with the consent of his seconder Cr. Harris withdrew his motion and Cr. Parfitt substituted the following j “That the Main Highways Board be advised that the council is not in a position to proceed with the Pipiroa bridge at the present time, but that it is prepared to put aside £lOOO a year to build same and that it considers that in view of the amount of outside traffic using the

crossing the Highways Board’s subsidy should be £4 for £l. Crs. Mayn and Fisher considered that the issue should be stated more plainly. Cr. Harris agreed, and suggested a definite reply that the council would set aside £lOOO on condition that a £3 for £1 subsidy was granted.

Cr. Fisher moved that in accordance with the resolutipn passed on August 14, 1922, making certain bridges county matters, this council set aside £lOOO a year for the construction of Pipiroa bridge. Cr. Mayn said that Cr. Fisher’s motion clarified the position in regard to other bridges, but was very vague in regard to the Pipiroa bridge subsidy. Councillors expressed the opinion that to confirm the previous decision mentioned by Cr. Fisher a separate motion should be passed and the issue not confused by adding to it matter relative to the Pipiroa bridge. On continuing after the luncheon adjournment Cr. Mayn objected to Cr. Fisher’s amendment on the ground that it did not contain provision for securing the Thames Borough’s £750 and the Highways Board’s subsidy, while committing the council to a course of action. In reply the chairman intimated his intention of moving a resolution if the amendment was carried. Cr. Madgwick would not agree to the withdrawal of Cr. Parfitt’s motion, and the amendment was carried on the votes of Crs. Fisher, Parfitt, Hale, Motion, and Harris, the negative votes being Crs. Madgwick, McDuff, Reid, and Mayn. Cr. Mayn moved to amend this as follows : “That this council resolves to’set aside £lOOO a year for the construction of the Pipiroa bridge provided the Thames Borough Council contributes the £750 promised and the Main Highways Board gives a £4 for £1 subsidy in consideration of the big volume of outside traffic using the crossing. Seconded by Cr. McDuff. Cr. Parfitt opposed this as it deferred setting up the fund until arrangements in connection with the subsidy were finalised. This amendment was defeated and Cr. Fisher’s motion was carried on the votes of Crs. Harris, Motion, Hale, Parfitt, and Fisher, Cr. Madgwick refraining from voting and Crs. Mayn, Reid, and McDuff opposing. On this being declared carried the chairman moved that the council consider that in view of the amount of outside traffic the Highways Board be asked to increase the subsidy to £4 for £l. This was opposed by several speakers as being too indefinite, whereupon Cr. Harris suggested that it be worded, “That this council is not in a position at present to build the Pipiroa bridge, but is setting aside a fund for that purpose, provided that in view of the large amount of outside traffic uusing the Pipiroa crossing the Main Highways Board should increase its subsidy to £4 for £l.” This was carried unanimously.