POWDERHAM STREET BRIDGE

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LII, Issue 374, 27 April 1910, Page 8

POWDERHAM STREET BRIDGE

i T.VTInN Tu Till-: rni/NCIL. I A deputation consisting of several leading ratepayers wailed upon the Works Committee of the Borough Council last evening, and presented a petition. signed by over 101 l ratepayers, pro-u;.-ii;ig against any di-p.inure iroiu Uie in ii'inal plan of constructing a full-width bridge ill I'owdclmm street. .Mr. 11. Uoodacre acted as spokesman. lLe said Unit a big section of the rate-| payers were under the belief that the Council did not intend to carry out the original plan to give a. full-width 'bridge, but intended to give only a -2ft. structure. They felt that the .proper time to object to such a departure was the present. The street was au important| one. being next to Devon street, and it would be a great mistake to reduce the width to the size contemplated. The Council might -ay that lacy had instillieiiiit funds wilh which lo cart - / out the work and give the necessary width, but the deputation felt that they had. Even if they had not, the Council would be justified in expending an additional C2OO to £301) out of overdraft. Were retaining walls erected the work could 'be done within the original estimate, and to the. cost the adjoining property holders' would no doubt contribute. Messrs F. W. Brooking and R. Cook also spoke, the hitter stating liis willingness| to contribute towards the cost of the work. As a ratepayer, and speaking disinterestedly, he would be sorry to see a patchwork made of the bridge. The Mayor reviewed the position.. Tenders were called for the work, and the lowest ( £2-250) accepted. The Couth oil could not get the necessary easements, and so the contract was amended, allowing of a culvert the width of the street, being constructed. A condition was attached giving the Council i the right to have the full width ot the j culvert done later if desired. The en-' gineer found that instead of having to > go down eighteen inches for the t'ounda-. tions it was necessary to go down six or seven feet. This cost over .CoUO. To carry the foundations out the rull length would cost another .toOO. The original scheme was suspended (pending arrangements being made with neigh-: boring property owners to either near a share of the' cost of a retaining wall or give permission for the fillings and culvert to encroach on their properties. It was not to be expected that the Council should spend money lor the benefit of the neighboring property owners. Mr. Cock, when approached, was willing to allow the culvert to encroach, en his property, so long as he was. able to utilise the culvert, or a part of it, on which to build, Unit he objected| to the earth required for the batter goon his property. The Council would have been foolish to agree to put a 30ft. culvert on a man's 'property for him to build upon and get no compensating advantage in return. The Council could get uo "satisfaction from the Railway Department, and, as a matter of fact, passed a very strong resolution (really a vote of censure) on the Department. It had lieen alleged that the Council inter,(led to take some of the money, voted for the work for the other bridge. He gave this an absolute denial, No such thing was intended, or ever had boon. Thev had to consider not one section of the ratepayers, but the whole of them, lie did not think it was necessary to have presented the petition. T he petitioners were la>' oring under n mistake regarding the Council's intentions. Everything had been done above board and proceedings in connection with the bridge reported in the press. The Council could be relied upon, to carry out th work if the money wore available, l>u ' they did think the neighboring property | owners should pay a proportion of the cost.

;ilr. Cock took exception to the Mayor's remarks concerning himselt 1 They put him in a false position. 'Llie Council presented a deed to him setting out that 30ft. of the culvert was to go through his property, and asking him to sign it. He asked the .engineer if the culvert would carry a building. The engineer replied in the affirmative. lie approached the Mayor and told him that he did not wish the earth neccs sary for the batter to lie thrown on his ■place, and offered to give to the Council a sum of money equalling the estimated cost of such lilling towards the cost of a retaining wall. He had no desire to make one penny out of the Council, and, indeed, there was 110 question of personal .benefit about the matter. Cr. P. Bollringer endorsed what the Mayor had said. They conld not expect the Council to spend £3OO to i'tiOO over and above the sum voted by the ratepayers. 'Good work had -been put in at the bridge. Exception had ibeen taken to the massivcness of the work, but he contended that this was a fault in the right direction, for they aid not want I to have the experience of Auck land in regard to some of its fcrro con j crete work repeated here. He had thor j ougii confidence in the engineer and his work. It seemed to him the deputation did not know where they stood, They ought to give the Council credit for the work they were, doing on behalf of ratepayers, and not try to cast a stigma upon them. For himself, he was quite prepared to retire from putUie service and give someone else a show. I Mr. Goodaere assured the Council they did not wish to take »iiy credit from them, or to question their bona fides. Thwy simply wanted to ascertain what the Council's plans were, and to be assured that a full-width bridge would be provided. I Mr. Ewing thought the position of the deputation was not properly appreciated by the Mayor or Mr. Bellringer. 1 The deputation had 710 wish to rellcctj on or coerce the Council, it was gen-i orally understood that, the bridge was to be but a. 22ft. one. and the deputa-j tion had a perfect right to meet the Council and ascertain if this were so or j not and to make representations in fa-, vor of a. full-width structure. They were all working for the one end, namely, the advancement of the interests of the town. Mr. Goodaere said he had approached the Mayor after the matter had first been referred to in the Daily News, and! clearly understood from liini that the] bridge would be only a 22ft. one. lie, t hereupon interested himself in the I matter, for he fell, as everyone he had. approached did. that it, would ibe a fatall mistake to depart from the original idea of a I'ull-widl !i bridge. The Mayor: We do not propose to do that. Mr. Goodaere: I'm very glad to hear, you say so. We only want this assur-' ance. It is what we came here for. I

The Mayor said the representations of the deputation had not influenced the Council at all in regard to its construction of the bridge. Or. Gilbert said they had street corner and newspaper engineers, and due allowance should be made for their statements. lie attached little importance to petitions. He had no doubt he could get any number of ratepayers to sign a petition for a 22ft. bridge. Why didu't the neighboring

property owners come to the Council and say what they were prepared to give towards the work'; .Mr. Goodacre: It's the duty of the Council to ascertain that. Mr. Gilbert: 1 maintain they should come to tile Council. €r. Wilson said the deputation might, as well understand that, it was quite impossible to erect a retaining Wflll on the one side and not on the other. No easement had yet been obtained from the Railway Department. That was the stumbling block, and therefore they did not know when the work would be carried out. The deputation then withdrew.