THE long-running dispute between the city council and Birse construction over the cost of the Salt Ayre project looks set to rumble on despite attempts to bring the matter to a close.
Following a recent meeting between senior figures from both sides further discussions have been arranged to see if the key areas of dispute can be thrashed out and thus avoid complex and costly legal proceedings.
The dispute with the main contactor on the development started as long ago as 1997 when the project was completed and political group leaders at the council have requested that a couple of recent developments be made public - in the past, former Labour leaders and senior officers refused to disclose any details, especially the cost, of the disputed areas of the contract.
A council statement claims that Birse have requested a four-month extension in order to prepare its case for arbitration, which councillors have agreed to - the statement further claims that Birse managing director, John Elders asked for a meeting with the council's legal director, Mike Dudfield and the city's acting chief executive, David Corker.
The reasons for the disputed cost are mainly technical but some concerned councillors have expressed alarm as to how the council could end up facing a bill way in excess of the original agreed price for the job. Serious doubts have been expressed over not only the contract but also the management of the contact all the way through the project. One council source told the Citizen: "Contracts on projects like this should be watertight and then we wouldn't be left in vulnerable positions - as it is I can't see how we can avoid paying more money than we should."
The Citizen exclusively reported a projected overspend of £800,000 on phase II of the construction project almost 18 months ago. The story provoked strong protests from the council's recently-retired development director Charles Wilson and acting chief executive, David Corker. Both complained personally to company bosses about the fairness and accuracy of our report.
Converted for the new archive on 14 July 2000. Some images and formatting may have been lost in the conversion.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article