The fact that a scrutiny committee is still seriously thinking that there is a strong case for additional capital funding for footways is not because its members are mad. It's because there's a compelling economic case, given the amount of money that is leaked in insurance payouts due to inadequate maintenance for footways. And that is a short-term economic case that does not even take into account the economic argument of a 'stitch in time, saves nine'.
Nonetheless, these councillors recognise that there is only so much money to go round, and so, quite rightly, make recommendations on overhauling the service levels for maintenance so that what money is available goes that bit further.
Giving thought to why so much money is spent on reactive repairs, and why defects are repaired in the timescales that they have been, has got to be the way forward if we are indeed to do 'more for less'.
