Labour Council to blame for £1.9m overspend

8.00.00am BST (GMT +0100) Sat 26th Apr 2008

The £1.9m road overspend on the controversial Eastern Transport Corridor has been blamed squarely on the Council. An independent report into the overspend on the ETC reveals the extent of that blame.

Firstly, it criticises the Council for not going out to re-tender after significant delays in the start of the project were incurred due to the need to take measures to protect the great crested newt colonies on site. Secondly, it criticises the Council for failing to include all potential costs, such as those for the diversion of services, in its original budget. Thirdly, the contingency allowance was too small and was all swallowed up before construction started. Finally, the report is critical of the decision to allow the raising of the height of a section of the road by 2 metres, without considering the effect this would have on people living nearby. the Echo reports that the Council has shrugged aside criticism, saying that recent structural changes have been designed to ensure that these mistakes don't happen again.

"There were no surprises in the report," says the Chief Executive. "The report has not identified any particular fault on the part of individuals. This project evolved over many years and many of the officers are no longer with the Council, so there is nothing to be achieved by a disciplinary investigation."

Shockingly, despite the Chief Executive saying a few months ago that this would not cost Darlington Council Tax payers any extra money, the Department for Transport has not yet agreed to grant more funding.

The report says that errors occured partly because of changes in personnel in the Council, and long-term sick leave, so that continuity was lost. Well, that wouldn't be acceptable in private industry. The people at the top would make sure that the project progressed smoothly. Of course, in local government, it's not their money that's been wasted, it's yours and mine.

Who was the Responsible Executive? If there wasn't one, why not?