WHAU BRIDGE DESIGN

Sun (Auckland), Volume IV, Issue 1049, 13 August 1930, Page 9

WHAU BRIDGE DESIGN

APPROVAL BY MINISTER HARBOUR BOARD OVERRULED A letter giving authority to proceed with the bridge over tlie Whau Creek Is given in a letter from the Hon. J. B. Donald, Minister of Marine, received yesterday by the solicitors to the New* Lynn Borough Council. In anothr letter to the Auckland ; Harbour Board, the Minister intimated that he did not feel justified in j holding up the construction of the j bridge any longer. The Minister says: : “In view of the fact that the bridge is verging on collapse, that the Whau Creek canal is not the one recommended by the Inland Waterways Commission, and that it any case it would seem that the construction of a canal by this route will not eventuate for many years, if ever, I do not feel justified in holding the matter up any further, and am preparing to recommend the approval of a bridge with the clearances already indicated. If, 1 however, the Harbour Board considers that 50 feet lateral clearance should be provided, and is prepared to give an undertaking to pay the extra cost, then I am agreeable to require that tlie central span shall have that clearance.” j Tho proposed clearances were unanimously agreed to by tlie local bodies concerned, and are provided in a plan submitted by Messrs. Gray and Gulliver. The plan is for a centre span with a 12ft 9in vertical clearance at high -water ordinary spring tides . 1 for a width of 20 feet. “NOT FAIRLY REPRESENTED” HARBOUR BOARD'S ATTITUDE “The attitude of the hoard has, I think,, not been fairly represented by statements made by local authorities and their representatives,’’ said Mr. M. H. Wynyard, chairman of the Auck-j land Harbour Board in dismissing last' evening the Minister's decision regard-1 ing the Whau Bridge. “They speak of the bridge being de-1 tnanded by the board. The board had nothing to do with the preparation of any plaqs for the bridge. “Its sole requirement was that in any bridge a central opening 50ft. wide should be left, with a clearance of 12ft., if of a monolithic nature, otherwise the design did not specially interest it. The dimensions mentioned were in order to accord with the plans already prepared by the board in respect of a proposed Manukau-Waikato canal at Waiuku and designed to carry similar barge traffic. “The statement that the board's requirements would increase the cost, as the commission was informed, by from £ 4,000 to £ 5,000, lately reduced by the acting-Mayor of New Lynn to £2,000 to £3,000, cannot be supported. NOT NEW SUGGESTION 1 “The provision of a 50ft. span is not a new suggestion. The proposal for such a span was made following the inquiry of the Minister of Marine as far back as 1919, and is not a new gesture of the board. Other things being equal, the difference in cost between a structure providing 30 feet span and one providing a 50 feet span would be very small. The great difference in tite cost of the latest plans submitted by the controlling authority and ones previously prepared (not by the Auckland Harbour Board) is caused by a difference in the design and the nature of construction. The agitation to throw the blame for delay in finalising the bridge on the board is not warranted. “Having knowledge of the development of harbour facilities and the greater difference which existed in such development in other ports by bridge restrictions, the board, as custodian of the tidal waterway of the Waitemata, does not consider that it was unreasonable in the opening proposed by it in the permanent structure. As a matter of fact, preliminary conversations have taken place recently between representatives of a proposed larger industry and myself concerning canal connections between the Manukau and the Waitemata Harbour, and at the present time I am getting a report from the board’s engineer on the Tamaki and Whau canal routes *io supply certain information required by the parties. “Holding these views,, which have been known for years past, the board could do nothiDg less than put these representations before the Minister of Marine, as being its duty in respect of the interests it represents. Any responsibility now rests with the Minister in his decision.’’