HOROWHENUA COUNTY COUNCIL.

Shannon News, 20 September 1929, Page 4

HOROWHENUA COUNTY COUNCIL.

The following business relating to the Northern end of the County was transacted at Saturday’s meeting KAIRANGA BOUNDARY BRIDGE. With regard to the proposed new bridge between the Horowhenua and Kairanga Counties, on No. 60 Main Highway, the Kairanga County Clerk (Mr F. W. Connell) wrote stating that his Council has passed the following resolution:—“That if the Horowhenua County Council erects a new bridge on the present site of the bridge in the vicinity of the boundary between the Horowhenua County and the Kairanga County, the cost of the same, less the Main Highways Board subsidy; be found equally between the Horowhenua and Kairanga Counties, and that after the bridge has been erected the Kairanga County Council will - take control of same and, accept all future responsibilities as to maintenance.”

Notification was also received that, in view of the condition of the existing bridge, the Kairanga County Council could not accept any responsibility for accidents that might occur there. In answer to a question by Cr. Jensen, the Chairman stated that the Horowhenua Council was the body controlling the present structure. Cr. Jensen said that if the new bridge was gone on with immediately, the position would be all right, but otherwise there would be an accident. The Chairman: Do you think it will collapse? Cr. Jensen: It is very dangerous. The Chairman: I don’t think so. Cr. Jensen: Heavy loads will cause an accident sooner or later. The Chairman: We could limit the weights. It is not an old bridge. Cr. Catley said he had seen a heavily laden lorry cross the bridge, and was surprised at the small effect of it. Cr. Barber mentioned that there was a drop of six or nine inches on to the bridge, and said that this must be detrimental to it. Cr. Jensen: We know that there were constant repairs there. The Engineer: There is nothing to worry about, I think. I can draw the plans, and I think we can go ahead with it. The communications from the Kairanga Council were formally received. KAIHINAU ROAD. Mr R. M. Lange, “The Palms,” Shannon, wrote stating that there had been no metal put on the top end of the Kaihinau Road as yet. In several places it was through on to the clay, making it very awkward on a wet day. On the motion of the Chairman, the Engineer was given authority to deal with the matter. AKERS ROAD EXTENSION.

Mr H R. Farquhar, surveyor and engineer, Palmerston North, wrote stating that Messrs Jacobs and Grant had requested him to prepare a plan, which he submitted for the Council’s approval, showing the proposed alteration to Akers Road Extension. In the original road survey plans prepared by him in 1920, the road formation along Akers Drain was to be on the southeastern side. It was now proposed by the trustees of the W. Ross Estate to take oyer from Mr H. Akers for title purposes the strip of land one chain wide from the end of the present dedicated portion of Akers Road to Akers’s boundary and drain and along the north-western side of the boundary to W. Ross’s boundary, the intention being to ultimately form, metal and dedicate this strip as a public road. The continuation of this road would depend on the scheme of sub-division of the property, which had not yet been drawn up. The Chairman suggested that the County Engineer be asked for a report on the situation of this piece of road and its relation to the big drain. He thought that the Council should defer acceptance until the Engineer had reported on that aspect of the matter. If the Council was to have a road, it did not want a drain. On the motion of the Chairman, seconded by Cr, Colquhoun, the Engineer was instructed to furnish a report. DRAIN NEAR MAKERUA STATION A complaint was received from Mr T. Christensen, Makerua, that the drain around the corner by the Makerua station had been filled up completely by sand washing down from the cutting along the road. He asked for an inspection to be made, as he was a sufferer by it. He added that the difficulty could be remedied at little expense; the pipes were across the road half-way up the hill, and if they were shifted it would avoid all trouble. The matter was referred to Cr. Barber and the Engineer, with power to act. NEW BRIDGE REQUIRED. Mr S. H. Roberts, Tokomaru Valley Road, wrote with reference to the bridge on that road. He stated that about eighteen months ago he wrote to the Council On this matter and they sent out both their engineers, who reported the bridge unsafe and had a notice erected stating that anybody using it would do so at his own risk. The writer used this bridge —his only access —practically every day, at the risk of precipitating himself and family into the creek below. Last wool season he had to unload his wool and take it over the bridge one bale at a time, and this year he was doubtful if the wool lorries would risk the bridge

at all. The bridge must collapse one day, with a chance of causing someone's death. Each year a sum of money had been put on the estimates for this road, but during the last seven or eight years not a penny had been spent. The Chairman said that apparently the Council had to build a new bridge. Cr. Barber said he trusted that the matter would be attended to. Mr Roberts had had a pretty hard time getting his wool out. The Engineer, replying to a question

by Cr. Colquhoun, stated the length of the bridge was about thirty feet. Cr. Colquhoun asked if the present bridge could be repaired. The Engineer: Quite impossible. The whole thing is gone—decking, stringers and under-structure. Cr. Gimblett: How many settlers are there on the other side? The Engineer: Two. The Chairman suggested that a reply be sent to Mr Roberts to the effect that the work of replacing the bridge could be undertaken in the summer. A motion on these lines was moved by Cr. Colquhoun, seconded by Cr. Gimblett, and carried. REQUESTS FOR CULVERTS. Mr. Andrew McGill wrote informing the Council that his property at Tokomaru was badly in need of a roadside culvert. Since the bitumen road had been laid the water did not drain away, and consequently it flooded his garden, gateway and path. The job would not be a big one. The application was referred to the Engineer, with power to act. Mrs I. M. Webb, Tokomaru, wrote asking for a new culvert to be placed in front of her gate. The water was overflowing the drain and running across the path. There had been a stone drain, but it had closed in. Cr. Colquhoun suggested that the number of applications being made to the Council for culverts was becoming a serious matter. The Chairman said it was a precedent that the Council supplied the culverts and the applicants installed them. Cr. Colquhoun: I don’t think they do it in other counties. I think that people should supply their own access off the road. You might say that if we are required to supply culverts, we are required to metal into the gateways. The Chairman: If there is a road drain, then it becomes a question how you are going to get over it. Waterraces were another trouble, being a County concern. We had to do it there. Cr. Gimblett said that the Council had to take a stand as to how many culverts it would give. The Chairman: Yes, and I don’t think we should give, more than one crossing. The Engineer could report on it. Cr. Gimblett said he knew of men who had three culverts to serve one property over a short distance. The Chairman informed Cr. Colquhoun that the Engineer did not grant culverts without investigation. Cr. Catley: The policy of the Council in this respect should be adhered to. It is our duty to see that water is kept away, and I don’t think that, in supplying a culvert free and stipulating that the applicants put it in to the satisfaction of the controlling authority, we are unreasonable. We used to go much further, but would have had to strike an increased rate to continue it.

Cr. Gimblett remarked that Councillors received requests for culverts which did not come before the Council. He cited a request that was made for a culvert over a water race inside a farm.

The Chairman: At one time we used to metal in to the gateways, but that was going too far and it was decided to adhere strictly to culverts where necessary. We have done that, and I feel that if everyone gets a culvert, then the thing must bear fairly over the whole County. The ratepayers are paying. The small man reaps the advantage because of his paying the lesser amount of rates and getting a culvert. With modern roads it is necessary to have some form of channel to carry the water away. It is a question whether, in the construction of a road, you can cut off a man’s access. I don’t think you can. In the bush days you cleared away the stumps, a little metal was thrown down, and there were no water channels, and you could take your dray off the road; but the construction of more modern roads has necessitated the raising of the road and the construction of water channels, and in many cases the cuttingoff of access. It was from that point of view that the Council decided that, if they supplied means of access where it was necessary —and that is in 80 per cent of cases—then, if everyone was treated alike, the burden would be fairly even distributed. If you are going to cut it out, then the man who already has access has some advantage over the others. Cr. Jensen: There has never been more than one culvert granted to one property? The Chairman: If so, it is against the intention of the Council. Our intention is that you should have one access. I know a good many cases where it is not necessary to have a culvert in order to get over. Cr. Jensen said that the constructing of the highway's had interfered with the entrances in a number of places, and it was right that these should be restored, but the Engineer knew the policy of the Council, and this matter could be left in his hands.

The application was referred to the Engineer, with power to act.