Pier extension closures

0
Have your say

The recent article on the closure of the west pier extension, which now joins the long closed East Pier, raises the question as to how the structure has been allowed to get to this state if public safety is deemed at risk by allowing it to be left in use.

Surely Scarborough Borough Council engineering must have an ongoing preventative inspection and maintenance programme which has key assets identified that because of the “risk” they may pose and the value to the economy form part of an ongoing regime of work? Or is it that it actually runs a breakdown system that only activates when it is absolutely essential and then cites the lack of funding for doing nothing and thus closes the asset as has now happened to both pier extensions?

One would have thought that SBC would have short, medium and long term capital work programmes which would then assign ring fenced finance to cater for the renewal and maintenance of valuable assets as these two are, or has the cost of refurbishing the Spa, Mere and Peaseholm Park drained every penny it has in the cost overruns?

Perhaps if the invisible councillors (Joe Plant & Jane Kenyon excepted) who obviously take the lead from a similarly invisible MP actually held surgeries or made themselves more readily available or indeed used the media as a communication campaign conduit then the East Pier may be now back in operation and the west pier may not have followed a similar fate.

One has to wonder as to how funding is allocated, repairs scheduled and work allocated because it does seem as though whatever is in place does not work because if it did how on earth do we get to the point where both extensions are closed, quite frankly there really should be serious questions asked as to who is responsible for allowing this shambles to continue unabated.

Keith Thompson, Darnholm, Goathland by email