Why was the road being rebuilt?

AS taxpayers we should be asking why should it be necessary to rebuild Waterloo Road in Blyth which was laid at a cost of £3.3m less than four years ago.

Similarly, the fact no one appears to be aware of the underlying problems suggests the initial block paving was incorrectly laid, and if so why was it accepted and paid for?

The usual excuse will be it was a contract by Blyth Valley.

This, of course, is spurious as the roads were, are and always have been the responsibility of the county council.

And why were the construction records not analysed before planning the work?

The inference is that the engineers either made some wildly inaccurate assumptions, or alternatively the documents and records were not available.

Either way, why are we as taxpayers allowing the members to approve extortionate salaries for these officers when the money is so flagrantly wasted?

In the final analysis, if on the night of Saturday, October 8, it became clear things were not going to plan and the job was going to over-run, why not shut down operations, give some well earned rest to local residents and start again during normal working hours?

My guess is that no one was available or if they were available, were reluctant to make such a common sense decision.

Whichever way you look at this, the council has, yet again, demonstrated the interests of the council are more important than the interests of the rate payers they are paid to serve.

Furthermore we should all be calling members to account over draconian cuts to services when such large sums of publicly money can be wasted.

To add an additional degree of spice to this mix, it is the council which has a statutory responsibility to enforce legislation with regard to noise.

From the events of the Saturday night it would seem that not only is the council reluctant to apply these rules to its own activity, but in fact do not actually employ anyone to discharge their statutory obligations.

I would sum this up with the old adage ‘I’m all right Jack’.