AFTER a year of turmoil, delays and spiralling costs, one of Thurrock's senior directors says the authority has now got 'a totally cast Iron grip on the A13 widening project' and he is 'confident we can bring it in'.

Unfortunately the effect of the supposedly confidence-boosting statement of Thurrock Council's director of place Andy Millard was somewhat tempered at last night's meeting of the authority's Planning, Transport, Regeneration Overview and Scrutiny Committee when a fellow director shook her head and laughed at his words.

The meeting, held part in person at the council's civic offices and part virtually via the internet, kicked off with debate and discussion about the A13 project which has ballooned to close to £40 million over budget and is way behind schedule.

Mr Millard was responding to a question from committee chair Cllr Martin Kerin who had asked him if he could give guarantees about the much maligned project. Mr Millard's upbeat response was drowned out for the watching internet audience as the council's assistant director of transport infrastructure projects, in a technical mix-up, delivered her own eulogy on the subject.

When Mr Millard finally switched on his microphone and delivered his message, Anna Eastgate shook her head, laughed and rolled her eyes!

It was an embarrassing moment for two of the council's most highly paid performers who earn more than a quarter of a million pounds a year between them….

Comedy (or tragedy depending on your viewpoint) aside, the debate when on to see councillors express their concern that borough council taxpayers were going to have to pick up the cost of another major infrastructure project in the borough that has gone seriously wrong.

Who is going to pay for it?

The budget for the project laid down in 2016 was £79 million with a finish date this year. Currently the cost is estimated to be more than £114 million and the end date is set at August next year. The gist of the words of the two directors is that they will try and get the job done on those terms now, but they cannot be sure it won't be more.

Even less certain is who is going to pay for it, though the council has managed to secure £8.9 million from the South East Local Enterprise Partnership.

Councillors heard there are three options to cover the deficit. They are grant funding from the government, private investment or the money coming from council coffers.

Mr Millard told councillors that a roller coaster project now appeared to be on track. He said: "There have been complicating factors for the delays. Impacts have related to design and drainage problems and the bridge structures and diversion of utilities. Since October 2019 the project has been reaching its project milestones and there is a much greater level of certainly in line with a revised timescale and the revised budgetary figure."

Cllr Kerin then asked Mr Millard: "In terms of the three options to bridge the shortfall I really want to express and say now that taking it from Thurrock taxpayers is not an option we should go it. It sets the wrong message, we don't need this burden being thrown onto the people of Thurrock, they didn't cause it. If it is tax rises I would like to express my opposition to that."

The council's financial director Sean Clark then interjected, saying: "What we can't get away from is that this is a contract with the council. We have a contractual obligation to meet this contract and we have to make the payments that are due. While I would love to say it will not impact on council finances, I cannot but it will be the last resort. The preference would be the first option but it is likely to be a mixture of all three."

Is there an audit trail?

Cllr John Allen backed up Cllr Kerin, saying: "Problems will happen, you never know what will happen until spades are in the ground but we have an over spend of millions - this should not be sought from our taxpayers. As long as these monies are sought in other ways, other than reflecting it on to residents I can't see a problem, but it's the residents I want to protect."

Ms Eastgate outlined the background to the financial calamity, explaining a mixture of poor decision-making and failing to anticipate problems, while acting outside recognised construction sector contract guidelines had led to the problems, which she described as compensation issues. She focused on the fact that the project had been split into two sections and contracts – design and construction.

Cllr Alex Anderson asked: "Is there an audit trail going back to 2016. Who made these decisions relating to split between the design and the build?

He was told: "In 2016 two reports went to cabinet in March and December. The first went for tenders for a design a further report and the cabinet delegated to the then corporate director of environment and place. The contracts were awarded based on Highways England's collaborative delivery framework.

"There wasn't sufficient time to create a single design and build contract, that was the only credible decision because they had to start spending the funding or lose it."

Cllr Anderson responded to Ms Eastgate by saying: "Are you telling me you don't really know?" and got the answer "Unfortunately the people making those decisions are no longer here."

Cllr David van Day quickly rounded on that and pointed out that regeneration portfolio holder Cllr Mark Coxshall was a constant factor and asked: "Had Cllr Coxshall anything to do with that contract?" He got no reply though later in the meeting Cllr Coxshall, who was in the room but was only allowed to speak at the end of the meeting, said: "It's a shame I wasn't able to talk, I could have answered all your questions but I will be doing it in cabinet."

Was it a wide move?

Ms Eastgate then went into rhetorical mode saying: "The contractors, Kier, couldn't put a price on the utilities issue so the risk when to the council in this instance, but that is not unusual.

"Was it a wise move to continue? The only other option would have been to delay the contract - it had already been delayed. The only thing would have been to pull out and do a new award of contract once the detailed design had been worked out but by that time, the time would have been passed to spend grant monies, which would not have been available instead.

"So now we find a shortfall – it's not great."

Questioned by Cllr Oliver Gerrish Ms Eastgate attempted to detail where the overspend went.

He asked: "We are looking at a significant overrun, more than £30m over the budget. Why were there increased costs?" and was told: "There were compensation events of £20m because of a 'pain or gain' share agreement with contractors, utilities diversion works cost us just short of £10m (and there will be more to pay there) and though inflation was counted for, the additional delay put in £1.8 million of inflationary costs."

Bearing in mind the previous assurance that there was now a 'cast iron grip' on the project, Cllr Gerrish asked Mr Clark when it would be known what the final cost would be. Mr Clark responded by saying: "It will go up the final stage, then we will know if there is a gap. It could go to the last minute."

The discussion ended with a comment from Cllr David Potter who said: "Moving forward I am reasonably confident that our officers will do their utmost to ensure that Thurock taxpayers do not have to pay this. They get it that taxpayers will have the hump if they have to pay for it."