Footbridge Commission.

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume V, Issue 632, 11 July 1891, Page 3

Footbridge Commission.

Mr Booth, R.M., occupied the Bench yesterday morning as Commissioner concerning the Taruheru footbridge. Mr Finn, Solicitor, with the Mayor and Councillors, represented the Borough ; Mr Clark and Mr Warren represented the County, and there were members of the Road Boards, and Mr Sunderland and other ratepayers present. Mr Finn said it would be necessary to know who were the parties appearing before the Commission. Mr Chrisp said he represented a number of outside persons, Messrs McLernon,' Maunsell, H. Thompson, H. Bull, T. Morgan, and others. Mr Sunderland said he wished to appear on behalf of those who used the river for lightering, Mr Clark mentioned that ho appeared for the County Council, Meesrs Joyce and Ollivier represented the Whataupoko Road Board, and Messrs DeLautour and Bright for the Harbor Board. Mr Finn asked that all witnesses be sworn, and evidence taken in proper legal form. He went on to explain the circumstances connected with the bridge. He read the Borough Counci/s petition concerning the bridge, and went on to explain the whole position of affairs. Mr DeLautour said he only wanted to make a statement. There was, he said, a liability cast upon the Board by Statute for the maintenance of the water-way clear of obstructions, the river being a tidal river and therefore in theory navigable. That was the only way in which the Board was concerned in the matter. It had no power to construct a work of the kind, or maintain it, its only power in the mattter of works being the construction and maintenance of works which were necessary for the improvement, protection, or management of a harbor. The Public Works Act recognised the incapacity of Harbor Boards to expend any part of their revenue in the construction of streets, and gave them a limited power to contribute under agreement with other bodies towards the cost of streets running through reclaimed land, or other land vested in it. The Board was content to leave the matter there, simply pointing out that the Commissioner’s power wegt no further than to assess, subject to ratification, the liabilities of the several local authorities with the powers of jurisdiction. They also asked that any work constructed or repaired should be so constructed or ordered to be repaired upon plans to be approved by the Board, as the body which is liable for obstruction of any kind which may be placed in the water-way of the river. Mr Joyce, in the course of his remarks, mentioned the division of the Road Districts, and said the bridge was out of the jurisdiction of the Whataupoko Boad Board. The number of residents in that district convenienced by the bridge was very limited. It was principally used by school children. He alluded to the limited funds at the disposal of the Board, and strongly contended that the Harbor Board and County Council should maintain the bridge, the Boad Board district being only benefited to a small extent. Mr Ollivier stated that the bridge was built according to the plans submitted to and approved by the Marine Board, The bridge had been twice broken down. The first time it was repaired and the original plans altered, which required a large extra expense, The work was done without any demand being made on the Whataupoko Boad Board, and he maintained that if this bridge was to be repaired that it could be done according to the original plans submitted to the Marine Board, which would bejless expensive than repairing it as was done on the occasion of the first damage. The bridge was maintained, opened, and closed by, he believed, the Borongh Council, and there had been no demands made until recently upon the Whataupoko Boad Board. Mr Ollivier was cross-examined, saying the bridge was of great convenience to the Whataupoko and Waimata residents, but he did not think they should be called on to pay anything. Mr Clark seid the County Council did not think it should be called upon to pay anything for the bridge, because it was outside their boundaries, and the County ratepayers who used it paid a very stjjjll amount of rates'. The Whataupoko riding owed £l4oo].t<Ujie other ridings in the County, The ftfroleyearly rates there -amounted only to £s=s, and there M little money W spend in that portion of the County. The bridge, he understood, was built by voluntary subscription, supplemented by grants from public bodies. The County Council subscribed £3O, but if asked for now it would not be granted. The Council’s duty wae to look after the main roads and bridges, and with the large expenditure required to do that there was nothing to spare for such works as the footbridge, which was not within threequarters of a mile of a main County road. They considered this bridge a luxury which they would be pleased to subscribe to if they had the means, but as it was they considered the residents of the locality should create a special district, and strike a special rate to pay for the bridge. The County Council bad had to strike a good many special rates themselves, and they thought it would come very hard on County ratepayers who were already paying special rates to be called upon to pay for the footbridge also. Mr Bunderland Baid the structure as it existed was not. suitable to a river on which there was a considerable amount of lightering work. There ought to be one span in the bridge at least 85 feet wide, with 9 feet 6 inches of head room from high water mark to the lowest part of the bridge. The piles on each side of the span should be of proper strength and well driven, and protected by a fender pile, so that the bridge would not be easily, damaged. The bridge was on a very bad site, the water being very shallow. Mr gooth said he could not take any evidence as to the site. Mr Sunderland said be just mentioned about the site to eave the trouble of writing to the Marine Department. Owiog to the water being shallow where the bridge was, the boats eould not eteer properly. The freezing works, he added, paid a large sum to the Harbor Board for wharfages. At this stage Mr Booth adjourned the proceedings until 11 on Tuesday morning.