WHAU BRIDGE INQUIRY

Sun (Auckland), Volume IV, Issue 1013, 2 July 1930, Page 10

WHAU BRIDGE INQUIRY

LOCAL BODIES’ SHARE OF COST CITY COUNCIL’S PROPORTION The apportionment of costs payable toward the new VVhau Bridge by the eight local bodies concerned was determined at a meeting of the Government-appointed commission which commenced its sittings in the Chamber of Commerce this morning. Mr. E. Bold, of Wellington, conducted the inquiry. In committee, the commission made The following apportionments:—Auckland City Council, 45 per cent.; Xew Lynn Borough Council, 25 per cent.; Waitemata County Council, 12 per i'ent.: Henderson Town Board, 7? per '•ent.; Glen Eden Town Board, 51 per tent.; Mount Albert Borough Council, Tj per cent. The remaining cost, it was suggested, would be divided between Mount Eden Borough Council and the ilelensville Town Board, but as these two were not represented at • he conference, this proportion cannot ‘'•e allocated until confirmed by those bod ies. The tentative plans placed before t he commission have been approved by i ho Main Highways Board and are the lourth which have been prepared by 'the engineers to the Xew Lynn Boreugli Council, the controlling local body. Representatives of the following local bodies were present at the inquiry: .Auckland City Council, the .Mayor, Air. George Baildon, Cr. l)emp- •■ ey and Messrs. Tyler and Brigham: Xew Lynn Borough Council, Air. Hailhow: Waitemata County Council, Mr. P. Finlay; Glen Ivden Town Board, Mr. V. Yallance: Henderson Town Board, Messrs. Greenslade and Hart. .Mount Albert Borough Council, Mr Gogerson; Mount Eden Borough Coun - < ih Mr. ,J. M. Melville; Auckland Harbour Board, Mr. Elliott. In his opening address, Air. Haddow *■•'hd that the present wooden bridge was ancient and was insecure for another year. It was narrow and dangerous, and it had caused many accidents. All the local bodies bad agreed that a new bridge was necessary. The only diverting road was a poor one . nd after a few hours’ rain woula probably be impassable. There was a possibility in the future of a canal being constructed between the Waitemata and the Manukau harbours but this was not likely to take place for at least another 10 to 20 years. The type of bridge proposed and one which would be supported by the local bodies was one of a 20ft roadway with eight feet on either side for footpaths, and 40ft from parapet to parapet. Such a bridge would give passage to the largest punts or barges employed on either of the harbours. The suggestion of a bigger bridge which would not have to be altered or rebuilt in the case of the canal going through, would .entail a great deal oxpenso which the local bodies could not afford. It would mean at least from £ 4,000 to .£5,000 more outlay “And who is to benefit by a big bridge?” asked Mr. Haddow. "Tip Harbour Board seemed quite concerned :ibout it, but they will not have to pay for the canal, for it will be built by some limited liability company. It is too much to ask of the local bodies to be forced into a benevolence of this kind.” Continuing, Mr. Iladdow said that the only difference between the bridge suggested by the loeal bodies and the larger one to meet the requirements of The canal, which is not likely to take shape for many years, was that the waterway w utld be restricted to 30 feet instead of 50 feet. The proposed bridge would bo as wide as that asked by the Harbour Board and consequently it would offer the same benefits to road traffic. At the conclusion of Air. Haddow’s address the commissioner granted an adjournment in order that representatives might discuss the question of ulloca tioris. When the meeting resumed the commissioner said he had no evidence that a new bridge, was necessary. Mr. W. A. Gray, civil engineer, was then called and condemned the present bridge as in.' deq uate. As the commissioner would need a P'.m approved by Governor-in-Coun-<il before making any recommendation, the meeting agreed to have a j plan prepared on (he lines suggested bv j Mr. Haddow. The meeting then adjourned sine die. I