SWAIMATA BRIDGE.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXIX, Issue 3224, 22 May 1911, Page 7

SWAIMATA BRIDGE.

FURTHER SITTING OF COMMISSION WHICH IS THE BEST SITE. .VARIOUS OPINIONS AND VIEWS. Tlie Waimata Bridge Commission \'as continued on Saturday by Mr W. A. Barton. S.M. at the Magistrate’s Courthouse. ■ • .

J. B. Kells, manager and auctioneer for Messrs Common. Shelton and Co., said 1 that he did not consider the McLean Street site suitable for a stock bridge, .because it was a thickly populated part of the town and v- as a very bad place to hold stock. The Russell Street site was better because i, e vicinity was not so thickly populated l , and it was better for holding stock. The hanks on either side of tiie river were low-lying. The Hairris Street site lie considered was the best of the. three and it would be just as convenient a site for the inhabitants of Kaiti and Whataepoikio to get across the river as the McLean Street site. The new bridge would! be an advantage to the Waimata farmers, but it was not recessary. Gavin R. Wyllie, auctioneer and stock agent, gave similar evidence. MR MOUATT FAVORS HARRIS STREET SITE.

John Mouatt, engineer to the Waikoliu County Council', said that from an engineering point of view McLean Street was not the best site owing to there being a high bank on one side ai-d a low bank on the other. The low bank would add to the cost of constructing the bridge. Harris Street, lie thought, was the best site between Kaiti biiclge and the island, and a bridge there v> mild be less costly from, the point of v lew of approaches. The high bank at the Hurahura Street end of the bridge would make access to two or three sections inconvenient. The best site for a bridge from, the tram development pcint of view was McLean 1 Street. Witness was unable to say what distributed weight the proposed bridge would carry. The width of the bridge was 24ft 9in overall. A 14ft bridge had been amply wide enough in the country with three exceptions —Waipaoa, Uawa and Wairoa bridges. The Mangatu steel bridge was less than 14ft. A 14ft bridge at McLean Street' was all the country w cu.m require, but not quite what the borough would require. WHAT BENEFIT TO WAIKOHU ? W. D. ri. MacDonald, sheepfarmer and chairman of the Waikohu C ounty Council, said !he was the owner of a station in the Waikohu riding, and lie sent his sheep to Nelson Bros.’ works. Sheep coming to the Gisborne works were held at Mangapapa over night and cussed the bridges in the early morning, when no difficulty was experienced. He agreed with previous witnesses 'regarding the counties use of the proposed bridge. He did not think the trams would be of any value to the county, and could not say what proportionate benefit the new bridge would be to the county. It would be of benefit to about one-half of the farmers in the Waimata riding. The Waikohu Council, to his knowledge, had not been asked to contribute.

John Clark, sheepfarmer, Howard Kenway, sheepfarmer, and T. Holden, sheepfarmer, gave evidence to the effect .that a great portion of the County ■would derive no benefit from the proposed bridge.

COOK COUNTY DOES NOT WANT IT.

Capt. Tucker said that he had not seen .the site of the proposed bridge. He knew the locality and the question of the bridge was considered by the County Council. All the opinions were set down in writing and' forwarded to the Borough Council, who ignored them. They took no steps to discuss the matter with the Cook County Council. The bridge would only be valuable to a small portion of the County, but to tlie great bulk it did .not matter “tuppence” whether the bridge was there or not. The County did' not want it, and they never asked for it. He recollected no complaint regarding the insufficiency of the present bridges. After tlie Borough Council mentioned the matter the Cook County Council thought that a bridge should be erected 1 at a site higher up the river and at the place selected by their engineer. This bridge could be erected for the sum the Borough Council asked from the Cook County Council. Whatever benefit, if any, accrued from the running of the trams into the County were compensated for by the concessions made by the Cook County Council ini connection with the trams. It was likely that those portions' of the County where the tram would run would be absorbed into the Borough in the future.’ The Taruheru Board did not require a tramway, because it has a railrway right through the district. W. G. McLaurin, sheepfarmer at Waimata, said that he knew the site of the piroposed bridge, and from a stockowner's point of view the site was unsuitable because it was such a very, bad place to get the stock on tp a bridge. There were fotxr roads, and it would be most difficult to force sheep on. SITE DECLARED TO BE UNSUITABLE.

John Warren, clerk to the Cook County Council, produced a statement showing the contributions made on account of bridge maintenance by the Cook County Cbnncil. Since 1904, when the Council reduced the Cook County Council’s portion to 9-28, there had been a great increase in' the population of Kaiti and Whataupoko. The County, had since asked for a further reduction, but this was refused. The area of th« Cook County was 550,000' acres, and the trams would only benefit 960 1 acres, and there were portions which would probably he absorbed in the borough ,in the future. He had; seen the proposed site of the bridge and from a town point of view it was the best site. It would be a central site for a tramway bridge to Whataupoko and Kaiti, but as a site for a. stock bridge it was unsuitable. It brought the traffic. away from the main road on, either side and l did not give any access to any other part of the main road. He did not know of any. site for a stock bridge that could be connected with the main road. > EVIDENCE OF MR GRANT.

Geo. Grant ; surveyor arid valuer, said that he had inspected the site of the proposed bridge and from a stock point of view it was not suitable,_ but from what 'he termed the social point of view it was a good site. The disadvantage from a stock point of view was that there was no way of preventing stock escaping. Mr Paterson’s estimate of the cost, £7OOO, owing to the increase in the price of material and labor, was probably quite correct, though witness had not seen the plans. If the Borough Council could afford it it would be better to build in concrete instead of sheath piles. The site at Harris Street was a much better one for a stock bridge. It would be a great waste of money to build a stock bridge alone. Geo. John Winter, surveyor and valuer, said he knew the site’and he agreed with the previous fitness that this was not a suitable site for a stock

bridge. He would not condemn the site for general utility. . i A. Forde Matthews, engineer and surveyor and a member of the Cook County Council-, said lie agreed with tlie previous -witnesses as to. the unsuitability of the McLean Street site. Ho thought the Harris Street site would serve really as many borough inhabitants as the McLean Street site. ■ FURTHER EXPERT TESTIMONY. De G. Fraser, engineer.to the Cook County Council, said that lie had heard the evidence of the other engineers, and he agreed with them. The McLean Street site was unfavorable; from a stock of engineering point of view. The principal disadvantage was having it at a bend in the river, and the unequal height of the bridge. He thought £6OOO would cover the cost. He was of opinion that a good 1 and suitable traffic and stock bridge could be erected at Harris Street. The approach could he widened and that would 1 give sufficient room for holding stock. The cost would be about the same as the McLean Street bridge. There was no bend in the river at this particular spot.. The Commission then adjourned till June 6th.