WHO is responsible for the gross underestimate of costs on the Bolton Spirit of Sport project?

Is this another case of highly paid officers engaging over-paid consultants and getting the sums wrong?

It is ironic that I find myself replying having read in the Bolton Evening News (October 28) the report on problems with the Newport Street bridge - £3 million and now extra costs to correct design failures.

Yet, in another report, we read of the Victorian aqueduct from Thirlmere to Bolton, which has lasted 120 years, and has just had a repair programme of £750,000. This is a fine example of the skill of the Victorian engineers who did not have the benefit of computer calculations and today's technology.

In company with a number of correspondents in recent months, I was not persuaded that the Newport Bridge design was appropriate, either in engineering terms or aesthetically.

One is critical of those responsible for the decision to use this system (demonstrably not a proven method) rather than the traditional method.

One also questions the assertion that this £3 million-plus scheme was a cheaper option, albeit accepted that the bridge has to carry heavier loads today than in the 19th and early 20th centuries.

When the road surface was removed from the bridge, substantial girders were exposed.

If these were not of sufficient strength, they could have been replaced to a greater specification. If that had entailed adding to the foundations, surely that could have been achieved within the £3 million.

And even if the cost was rather more, the well-tried method would have worked without the serious problems now faced.

One has the suspicion that officers and councillors were captivated by this novel design without the benefit of experience of the system's success elsewhere.

Brian H Tetlow

Oaks Lane

Bradshaw