PIRONGIA BRIDGE COMMISSION.

King Country Chronicle, Volume V, Issue 355, 26 April 1911, Page 5

PIRONGIA BRIDGE COMMISSION.

The Commissioner (Mr W. S. Short) appointed to hear evidence from the various contributing bodies to the proposed new Pirongia bridge, held an enquiry at the Court-house, Te Awamutu, yesterday morning. The following counties were represented: -

Waitorno: Messrs A. Scholes, chairman; W. Hoffman; and G. P. Finlay, solicitor for the county. Waipa: Messrs J. Fisher chairman; C. Bowden, clerk; and A. J. Swarbrick, solicitor to the county. Raglan: Messrs Campbell Johnstone, chairman; D. Bruce; H. Marsland, clerk; and Skelton, solicitor to the county.

Kawhia: Mesras 11. 11. Shaw, chairman; Barton, clerk; and 11. T. Gillies, solicitor to the county. Some preliminary discussion took place on what were the reasons for the adjournment, and Mr Gillies (Kawhia) suggested that it would save time if evidence was taken to decide whether the new bridge was really necessary.

The Conmmissioner held that the evidence of Waipa should be heard. Mr Sw-arbrick (Waipa) quoted the letter written by the Kawhia County Council on April 10th to the Waipa, Waitomo and Raglan County Councils, giving notice that the bridge was un- ! necessary to Kawhia County, as the j Whatiwhatiboe bridge served ail their | requirements; that the bridge would only be of service to the original counties cited: that before the Whatiwhatiboe bridge became unfit for traffic a new bridge giving access to Kawa railway station would be erected; and, alternately, if the bridge was to be built: the site was unsuitable; the bridge should be built where the present Whatiwhatiboe bridge is; the nearest point of Kawhia County was twenty miles from the proposed bridge; there would be practically no heavy traffic from Kawhia County over it; the bridge would be far heavier than required by that county, and it was inequitable to pay more than 5 per cent, towards the cost. Mr Swarbrick went on to show that the proposed bridge was the outlet for a district of 80(H) acres, about 700 acres in Waipa, 4000 in Raglan and the balance in Waitomo County. The township on the west side was a paper one, and only contained two settlers living in Waipa ' County. The bridge would maintain a means of access existing for 40 years past. It was proposed to build the bridge on a new site to make it a high-level one, and avoid floods. Waipa County proposed a bridge costing £ISOO, but the Government insisted upon a permanent structure being erected. He thought the Commissioner would be satisfied a bridge was necessary. Referring to the Whatiwhatihoe bridge, Mr Swarbrick said it would cost a large sum of money to make a practicable road from one to the other. The Whatiwhatihoe bridge was separated by a stream and more money would have to be spent to give access than in building this bridge. Apart from this, it was said the Whatiwhatihoe bridge had a life of eight to ten years. He urged that a decision should be based on the present condition of affairs. The Waipa County had a relatively small interest in the bridge, but action was forced upon them because the bridge site was in Waipa County. The Commissioner interrupted Mr Swarbrick to say that on grounds of general equity equal apportionments were called for from each side of the river, and strong grounds should be shown for any variation. Mr Swarbrick said the bridge was of very small use to people on the east side', and if taken away would be little loss to Waipa County. A tally taken for one week showed of foot passengers over the bridge 150 came from Raglan County, 40 from Waitomo and 168 from Waipa, but of the latter 43 represented traffic to and from one man's farm in Waipa County. Horses showed 83 from Raglan, 31 from Waitomo an 41 from Waipa, and vehicles 20 from Raglan, 7 from Waitomo, and 14 from Waipa. Mr W. H. Mandeno, engineer to Waipa County, gave evidence. The proposed new bridge would be 30 chains above the present one, and about a mile from the Whatiwhatihoe bridge. To Mr Finlay: The bridge would serve a large farming area; Supplies of metal had to come over the bridge. He thought M2 an acre would more nearly represent the value of the land over the bridge. Pirongia had shown great improvement the last three or four years. The county was producing more to-day than evor before. The bridging of the Mangaweka creek would be the greatest expense in making a road from the old bridge to the Whatiwhatihoe bridge.

To Mr Skelton: There were five ratepayers in Waitomo County and seven in Raglan County, one only of whom was served by the Whatiwbatihoe bridge. There had been no great increase of settlement. The present bridge might collapse any day, but was useable for foot traffic and light carts. He was present at the meeting in Hamilton where a resolution was carried declaring the. bidge unnecessay. An estimate that the road between the bridges could be made for £6OO would be absurd. He would be much surprised to hear that anybody would undertake the work at the price. He would not recommend the construction of such a road,rather than the building of a £3500 bridge, as it would be a blow to the development of the district. He added that land on the west side of the river had not greatly increased in value owing to lack of proper conveniences and certainty of access. The Waipa County put off the getting of a new bridge as long as they could. To Mr Gilies: To form a reasonable road it would cost £3OOO. If it was well settled country, Pirongia and Te Awamutu would benefit. Every person crossing the bridge was either going to or from Waipa..

To Mr Finlay : Reasons for failing to i i cultivate the land on west, side was the | condition of the bridge and the un- \ i certainty of the possibility of selling, j To Mr Swarbriek: In Raglan ! , County people could not get about without roads being made. At the conference held eight or nine years | ago, Raglan agreed to contribute 10 ' per cent, to the cost of a new bridge, j Mr F. B. Sims, engineer, of Harnil- ; ton, estimated the formation of a road [ between the site of the proposed new bridge and the Whatiwhatihoe bridge, | inclusive of buildinar two bridges ; across creeks at £4970

Mr G. 11. Prince, who took a tally i fox- 6 days in January last said be counted each person who passed back and forward as two persons. If a j passenger came from Raglan and came back from Waipa, he was ■ counted as two against Raglan. ■ Mr Chas. Bowden, clerk to Waipa i County, said they had received £5 17s 7d in rates from the west side of the river last year. Most of the owners were absentees. The Government .average value of land in Waipa County affected was £2 an acre. Mr D. O'Shea, a settler in Raglan County, had 200 acres of land there and a sawmill. His access was across the old bridge. He floated his timber down the river, except for four months in the year, when it was too low. Want of roads and bridges was keeping the district back round his way.

Mr T. C. Grace and Councillor Macky, of Pironiga, gave evidence. Mr Skelton, solicitor for Raglan County, claimed that the bridge was premature. Instead of spending £3500 on the erection of a bridge, they should make a new road. Mr McLeod, engineer to Raglan County, confirmed his estimate of £6OO for making a road. Cr Bruce (Ragian) said he was willing to take the contract at the price. He admitted it would be a low-level bridge and liable to flood. Mr Campbell Johnstone, chairman of Ragian County, said they were willing to guarantee to have the work done at the price fixed by the engineer, and if other local bodies agreed they would contribute their proportion of £7OO.

Mr W. M. Forsyth, consulting engineer for Waitomo, spoke of the condition and stability of the Whatiwhatihoe bridge. Mr Finlay, solicitor for Waitomo, admitted a new bridge was necessary, but claimed that the bridge suggested was expensive beyond reason. The Whatiwhatihoe bridge was the central point, and an expenditure of £3500 now, meant they would have to build another bridge later on when the Whatiwhatihoe bridge was worn out. Analysing the poll taken, he showed that net more than 15 per cent should be contributed by Waitomo County.

The Commissioner was of opinion that Waipa should be charged a bigger per centagc than they had debited themselves with. He would make a report to the Government, and have a copy forwarded to the parties interested in due course. The matter was of considerable importance, and would have his earnest consideration.