Council Rejects Calls For Inquiry
By Jo Deeks on Thursday, 18th September 2003.
Calls for an inquiry to investigate the catalogue of errors and money spent on road humps on the Chalkstone Estate in Haverhill has been rejected.
But a town councillor says he may raise the issue with the Local Government Ombudsman.
Chris Cullim, a Haverhill Town Councillor, raised the issue at last week's meeting of St Edmundsbury Borough Council's Cabinet, but was told that an inquiry would be a waste of money. Councillor Cullum said he was concerned by the amount of money already wasted on the humps and wanted an inquiry to make sure the situation was not repeated.
Councillor Cullum voiced his concerns after learning that some humps had again been put in incorrectly by contractors. He has been campaigning on the issue since 1999 and said he would take it up with the Ombudsman unless he received a satisfactory written response from the Council.
"While the Borough has promised the latest mistakes will be paid for by the contractor, what about the original £40,000 spent consulting and remedying the previous mistakes? Why is the original contractor not paying for those errors as well?. I think we have been led down the garden path twice," Councillor Cullum said.
A spokeman for St Edmundsbury Borough Council said some of the replacement humps were being installed again as they were not to the specifications given. The work would be paid for by the contractor.
But a town councillor says he may raise the issue with the Local Government Ombudsman.
Chris Cullim, a Haverhill Town Councillor, raised the issue at last week's meeting of St Edmundsbury Borough Council's Cabinet, but was told that an inquiry would be a waste of money. Councillor Cullum said he was concerned by the amount of money already wasted on the humps and wanted an inquiry to make sure the situation was not repeated.
Councillor Cullum voiced his concerns after learning that some humps had again been put in incorrectly by contractors. He has been campaigning on the issue since 1999 and said he would take it up with the Ombudsman unless he received a satisfactory written response from the Council.
"While the Borough has promised the latest mistakes will be paid for by the contractor, what about the original £40,000 spent consulting and remedying the previous mistakes? Why is the original contractor not paying for those errors as well?. I think we have been led down the garden path twice," Councillor Cullum said.
A spokeman for St Edmundsbury Borough Council said some of the replacement humps were being installed again as they were not to the specifications given. The work would be paid for by the contractor.
Comment on this story
[board listing] [login] [register]
You must be logged in to post messages. (login now)