Post by snoggle on Oct 15, 2017 14:33:51 GMT
The cost overrun issue was discussed at the Assembly Budget Cttee meeting a couple of weeks ago. A webcast is available on the london.gov.uk website.
Stuart Harvey, who I know of old, has been elevated to Head of Major Projects and is grappling with the consequences of the enforced station redesign at BPS. The alleged cost issue is £240m. He was very reluctant to give away too much which is entirely understandable when there is effectively a dispute between the parties even if formal papers haven't been served. Both sides are obviously talking to their lawyers and advisers while still being "nice" in public. When pushed Mr Harvey suggested that not opening Battersea Power Stn was a possibility which would make access to the redevelopment a bit more cumbersome for people and may deter people. However I am pretty sure LU is tied into a legal agreement that says they will run a given service level to all stops on the extension from a given date. Clearly this is in danger because of the enforced redesign of the LU station at the Power Station to bear the structure of the redesigned over station development (OSD). Whether LU is prepared to *actually* threaten to not open to BPS and therefore effectively put itself into potential breach of the service agreement is another thing altogether. Can't imagine TfL's lawyers being terribly keen about that as it potentially weakens other arguments they may wish to deploy.
From what little information is in the public domain I believe LU was broadly on schedule on the entire project until the enforced pause because of the developer's OSD change. Therefore LU has a decent place to start from and the developer probably hasn't *unless* "ideas" were floated about potential impacts if there were "changes" and someone from LU was a little "loose" with their words. You can guarantee that will have been written down somewhere if it happened. Unfortunately it does happen even if it was not on formal project communication between the parties. On the face of it the developer doesn't have much of a leg to stand on and they may potentially earn way above £240m from the larger OSD over a reasonable time period. A point made quite forcibly by Len Duvall AM who pushed pretty hard on who had the most "power" in the dispute. Whether LU can prise open the developer's wallet is another thing. If I was LU I would certainly want a relaxation of the project completion deadline and service obligations given the delay has been caused by the other party. There is no point LU being forced into a potential breach and penalties through no fault of its own.