PSD dips into reserves in first year of airport work
Wednesday 30th January 2013, 1:00PM GMT.
Jim Anderson speaking at yesterday’s airport project media press conference. (Picture by Tom Tardif, 1301807)
PUBLIC Services has been forced to dip into some of its contingency reserve during the first 12 months of the airport project, it has confirmed.
But client project manager Gerry Prickett said the outlook was positive, as the department had spent less than half of the £9.7m. set aside, with 50% of the permanent works complete and 70% of the materials already delivered.
The contingency reserve within the £80.4m. project is earmarked for known and potentially unknown risks that could materialise during the works – an example of this was costs incurred following a delay of construction work due to the 49 planning conditions placed on the temporary dock at Longue Hougue.
Public Services minister Paul Luxon will update deputies on progress in a statement at today’s States debate.
- To read Guernsey Press stories in full click here for subscription details. Individual editions are now available online.
Tuesday 21 May
- Two rescued from fire
- 'Go Green'
- Your States - South East district
- Inside Politics
- Sport - GFC will host midweek home games
Campaigns
Voice For Victims
Voice for Victims is a campaign aimed at promoting the rights of those affected by child sexual abuse.
This is Guernsey
Guernsey Press
Useful Links
49 planning conditions placed on the TEMPORARY dock !
That must be at least 10% of the conditions in Environment’s big book of conditions
Report abuse
I expect there maybe more dipping soon..
Report abuse
Additional costs because one States Department placed additional conditions on another departments work ?? Surely these things should be identified beforehand.
This joined up government is certainly working.
FTP is trying to save £31 million, while departments are causing additional costs on existing projects …
Report abuse
Come on IWV, those 49 conditions were not designed to make life hard for Lagan, what they were intended to do was ensure minimum inconvenience to the nearest residents and the users of the harbour facility and minimal environmental impact. If there was no control in place the residents and users, that is a large group of Guernsey people, would have had plenty to moan about and you would be up on your soapbox faster than a Fallaize amendment!
Report abuse
If I remember correctly in the early 1970′s Guernsey added 1p to a packet of cigarettes to pay for airport improvements! Does anyone remember this?
Report abuse