Presidents warn of increase in costs by delaying projects
PUTTING off capital projects could leave the States facing higher costs in the long term, according to the president of a committee overseeing several projects which are now slated for delay.
Policy & Resources hopes to defer hundreds of millions of pounds of spending by reviewing or delaying a range of schemes, including replacing the island’s fleet of buses, improving coastal defences and new facilities for inert waste.
‘I was a little surprised to find the bus fleet replacement programme in the re-scoping bracket. The longer that project is delayed the more costly it is likely to become,’ said Environment & Infrastructure president Lindsay de Saumarez.
‘It is significantly more expensive to run ageing vehicles than newer versions, so there is a real economic benefit in replacing old buses with more cost-efficient alternatives.’
Deputy de Saumarez could understand why coastal defence projects might need to take longer, because most of them are dependent on other policy decisions.
‘However, this does illustrate a potential issue. Just delaying expenditure doesn’t necessarily avoid cost, and in some cases it can mean more expenditure overall is required,’ she said.
‘The same is true of the inert waste facility. While moving it into the pipeline bracket may be justifiable in its own right as a specific project, it doesn’t negate the fact that we will need to spend money on an inert waste facility sooner rather than later. The longer we don’t, the more costs we are likely to incur in the meantime and the more we will need to spend overall.’
Deputy Peter Roffey, president of the States’ Trading Supervisory Board, which operates waste facilities, said he too was concerned about the prospect of delaying long-term plans for disposing of inert waste.
‘It could lead to a waste mountain being created,’ he said.
But he was pleased to see renewed backing from P&R for the STSB’s project to extend Alderney’s runway and redevelop its airport facilities.
‘This makes sense for two reasons. First, it is a spend-to-save initiative; second, it will use specialist contractors and so won’t impact on the local construction industry constraints.’
Deputy Roffey said the States only had itself to blame to be facing these capital spending cuts after it rejected all the revenue-raising proposals in the Tax Review.
‘It is deeply disappointing to see so many crucial infrastructure projects proposed for delay, particularly given the systemic failure of the States to invest properly in infrastructure over the last 15 years,’ he said.
‘I put this partly down to the States’ awful failure to face up to financial realities. That said, even with unlimited capital, there would obviously be capacity constraints which would probably require some difficult decisions.’
