THERE have been renewed calls for the controversial Poolbeg incinerator scheme to be scrapped after costs for the project spiralled.
The annual report by the local government auditor on Dublin City Council’s financial affairs for 2011 found that costs for the scheme have risen to over
?¬81 million since the council began the project last year.
The report noted that the original contract for
“client representative
? services – the spend on consultants – was e8.3 million, but that to date the council had spent
?¬28.4 million. This amount included costs of over e3 million for public relations services.
It also stated that a lack of financial reports from the outset of the audit indicated that the financial control procedures in place were
“not adequate for such a project
?.
The report noted that the Project Executive Board did not meet on a formal basis and therefore no minutes of meetings were retained.
The auditor also found that the construction of new premises for Westway Terminal Hibernian Limited (WTHL), which had to be relocated to make way for the incinerator facility, was initially estimated to cost
?¬12 million but the final bill came in at
?¬22 million.
Cllr Dermot Lacey (Lab) called for the project to be scrapped.
“We spent
?¬80 million
?¦For God’s sake, would the management and the department [of Environment] not just give up the ghost and admit that this project has been a horrendous waste of money,
? he said.
“It is something not wanted by the people of Dublin and not wanted by this city council.
?
Cllr Mannix Flynn (Ind) said the auditor’s report had significantly eroded support for the project.
Cllr Paddy McCartan (FG) described the report as a
“damning indictment
? of the incinerator project and added that the scheme should be abandoned.
In response, city manager John Tierney apologised
“for the fact that the auditor found it necessary to apply such criticism and that there were shortcomings in the processes
?.
In relation to the payments for technical, legal, financial and other specialist expertise, he explained that the number of processes, obstacles, complaints and queries necessitated the retention of consultants
“for far longer and for more cost than we would have wished
?.
“The project negotiations and the complexity of those various processes that we have been through, many of them additional to what would have been considered foreseen at the outset, mean that the retention of the consultants was required for a period that was much longer than was originally envisaged,
? he said.
In addition, he said the purchase of land for WTHL was complicated by leases, business relocation, way leaves, acquiring alternative sites and the presence of contaminated ground.