What happened on East Avenue is a question I asked myself on numerous occasions when the recent road repair work was underway. Several ratepayers were confused by the work as they watched it unveil.

So many of us thought that the work carried out was for resurfacing. This did not occur, however, leaving a “patchwork quilt” effect. Understandably, this caused those thinking this way much consternation.

Why then was this the case? Why did we (Council) not reseal the whole road? Good questions.

On the back of communication by our contractor that did not explain what was happening, and as I promised several of you, I have sought a full explanation from our administration.

The work commissioned by Council was not a road reseal. It was a road-base repair.

Road seals are required say every 25 years or so. East Avenue, having been resealed only 10 years ago, was not and is not due to be resealed for another 15 years. Indeed, the road seal was and still is …. in good condition.

There were however numerous areas along East Avenue that had sunk, particularly north of the rail line. None more so than that experienced adjacent Forest Avenue.

So! What happened on East Avenue that prompted these collapses?

I personally noted the Forest Avenue collapse some two years ago and sought an explanation why this had occurred so soon after a reseal. Subsequent testing of the subbase revealed several areas where the subbase had collapsed, including unbeknown to me, south of the rail line. Areas not visually revealing as structurally unsound but unsound, nonetheless.

The subbase was likely compromised before that reseal but missed. Certainly, we can say that the work by the State Government on the grade separation of the (now) Seaford Rail line placed significant pressure on the East Avenue Road structure.

I have, since that time, pushed for the structural deviancies to be corrected. You can therefore blame me for the work being carried out.

I must admit that I too was expecting that the road (north) would be resealed as a result of the work being carried out, particularly north of the rail line. What I was not expecting was the amount of work needed south of the rail line.

While repairs were extensive, our administration did not believe a reseal was necessary.

Why? Because the surface of those areas not worked on where still in good condition. They (we) could not justify spending rate-payer money on replacing good bitumen with like-for-like. Neither could we justify the impact on the environment that road bitumen works impact.

The net result of this is the “patchwork quilt” referred to above. At the time of completion of the work, the difference between the old surface and the adjacent new surface was stark.

The administration did assure me that this would improve with time, particularly after a good rain. A good rain has not eventuated, but I must admit (by my observation) that the “patchwork quilt” is disappearing.

Hopefully, the same can be said in the future for the height difference between the old and the new. They (administration) have indicated that the new work should compact in time reducing therefore the bump we experience now driving from one surface to the next.