Residents angry at £500,000 Llandudno bridge overspend

Jun 10 2010 by Judith Phillips, North Wales Weekly News

Llandudno bridge works

RESIDENTS on Llandudno’s West Shore have described the delay in completing the Maesdu Bridge as a fiasco which could have serious financial implications for rate payers.

And they are asking why it seems that Conwy County Council didn’t ensure that the contractor carrying out the work was tied to a penalty clause if it overran, or insist they meet the cost of the estimated £500,000 overspend.

“There is considerable concern among residents living near me at the Maesdu Bridge delay,” said resident Neil McKenzie.

“We remember the fiasco over the delays to the swimming centre and the lack of accountability which led to our taxes being given away to the contractor.

“Now the same thing seems to be recurring whereby delays due to design and management issues are going to cost the tax payer £500,000.

“This is utterly unreasonable and unacceptable. Those responsible for the delay should foot the bill, not the council tax payers.”

He has written to the council’s acting chief executive Ken Finch asking what is being done to deal with the overspend.

“Why is the contract apparently open-ended on costs so the contractor has nothing to lose by delaying completion and racking up the cost?” he added.

“Which council officials are responsible for negotiating this?

“Did Conwy accept the lowest bid for this work, then fail to include safeguards against escalation?

“This failure would mean a contractor can undercut better contractors who give a higher but more realistic figure, safe in the understanding that the final escalated figure will be paid in full by the tax payer.”

And town councillor Garry Burchett, who owns the Spar close to the bridge, said the overspend was a major topic of conversation among residents.

“They want to know why the contractor wasn’t tied to a contract ensuring they met any overspend, and why it seems there were no penalty clauses if the work overran. It is scandalous if the tax payer has to pay.”

When asked to respond to the claims the council will have to foot the bill for the delay, a council spokeswoman said that issues regarding the contract were confidential.