Osklen
Winger
That was substantiated on (a) observations (b) has been backed up earlier in this thread by another poster who commented that there were not many people on site in recent weeks (as backed up by him chatting to security guards) and (c) the fact that it is no longer ‘Summer’!
(Also (d) - we were told when the bridge opened for the RWC in August that there were only ‘cosmetic’ works remaining to be complete. We’re now in October.
There is an imbalance of information here you know. Outsiders have limited recourse to information - and a lot of the info that is made public will have, let’s say, a PR ‘polish’.
On this last point (d), there was a BBC News article last week noting that there still isn’t a fixed completion date available publicly!
I get it - you work in the industry and you might not like transparency and accountability (I noticed you ignored that point in my previous post) but I think it is essential when it comes to public bodies spending public money.
Not to weigh in here but the contract completion date can still be different to the opening date. Contract completion date will be the date the contractor has committed to but could still be late and hence why LAD’s are applied - all of which I am sure you will be aware of. The opening date will therefore be down to when the contractor advises they are able to handover to the employer, assuming all certificates and licences have been approved and available. Not to protect the council but perhaps they’ve not been given comfort by the contractor to allow them to provide an official opening date?
Equally In respect to the contractor perhaps they’ve got sufficient programme contingency to do these works at the pace and sequence they need to. Anyway it’s only been 6 weeks since the rugby World Cup, and the bridge was clearly not complete for that date and I can’t see any reason why the contractor would not want to get off site asap.