THE centralising of West Somerset Council's operations in Williton was branded a "dog's dinner since the start" as councillors were left facing an additional £210,918 bill from the contractors who built their new offices.

Extra payments for delays caused by nesting birds, the removal and disposal of asbestos and additional air conditioning were all blamed for the overspend on the original £2.8 million contract.

Some "defects" still had to be rectified, while contractor Mansell had already had to compensate the authority to the tune of £85,000 for "poor blockwork" and an unexpected 20-week delay.

It also emerged that more expense could be in the offing to make the building's wood pellet boiler "greener" by installing a larger silo to reduce the number of wood pellet deliveries to the site.

However, that element was still on the backburner as the authority had yet to find a system to deliver the required "carbon savings".

Members of the public and councillors at the council's cabinet meeting on Wednesday questioned the additional charges and accused the authority of wasting public money.

Williton member Cllr Hugh Davies said previous chief executive Tim Howes had promised no extra costs would be incurred by the council as a result of the discovery of nesting birds in the old Red Cross Centre, which had to be demolished to make way for the new office building.

He also accused cabinet members of simply "rolling over" and caving in to the demands of Mansell after deputy leader Cllr Michael Downes said mistakes had probably been made and claimed the overspend figure was "the best deal we could get".

Cllr Davies said: "I'm horrified by the deputy leader's lie back and die attitude.

"Let's fight this. Don't lay back and give out our money."

But executive director Adrian Dyer said the £210,918 overspend being put before councillors was far less than Mansell's original demand for £492,930.

"We haven't just laid down and accepted what was put before us," he said. "We decided to fight and we've been doing that since December.

"We have now reached a point where the advice we're getting is that there is a point where we think what is put before you is a fair reflection of the overspend without having to go to arbitration.

"It would cost money to fight further and there is no guarantee we would be successful in that fight."

Cabinet member Cllr Neil Parbrook said the problems that had plagued the project had been symptomatic of the way the authority had been run under the previous Tory administration and the former management team.

"Good as this building is, I feel the whole thing has been a dog's dinner since day one and just highlights the previous council's attitude towards money and the previous officers' attitude towards money - spend, spend, spend," he said.

"If you spend the capital there is no revenue. If we had the capital in the bank as we did six years ago we wouldn't be needing a feasibility study for a new pool because we would still have the old one.

"There is a lesson to be learnt by all of us."

There were cries of "disgusting" from members of the public as cabinet members were told the overspend represented an additional seven per cent on the cost of the project.

Finance lead member Cllr Doug Ross said the overspend could have been approved under delegated powers, but cabinet members had chosen to discuss the matter publicly in the "spirit of openness and accountability".

He added: "The amount claimed by the contractor was considerably more. £492,930 is 17 per cent and we've got them down to less than half that amount.

"For a major building project of this kind to come in at seven per cent is quite an achievement and I am happy to recommend we settle the account."

But former employee Phil Gannon asked: "Without doubt, the offices are a vast improvement, but at what cost?"

He said the planning application for the project had been flawed, decisions had been made in favour of the contractors and costs for the removal of asbestos were excessive.

Mr Dyer admitted there was "probably a fault in the contract" after the council was charged an extra £196,168 on the contract costs for asbestos removal and disposal and the delays associated with the additional work.

But council leader Cllr Keith Ross warned that the authority would face considerable costs if it took the matter to arbitration, although he did confirm there were plans to replace the wood pellet silo just over 12 months after it was installed.

Cllr Doug Ross added: "I know officers have been in long and protracted negotiations with the contractor.

"There has been a long list of things that have had to be put right. Our advice was if we did not settle and went to arbitration it would cost us more."

Cabinet members voted unanimously to pay the additional £210,918 to Mansell.

After the meeting, Stacey Beaumont, the council's media and public relations officer, was keen to allay fears the council might increase the size of the controversial wood pellet silo, having already been criticised for installing "a blot on the landscape".

In a statement she said: "The pellet storage options currently being investigated by the council seem unlikely to make the cost or carbon savings the council wishes to make.

"The storage being investigated is no higher than the existing facility and would fit behind the existing trellis.

"We are continuing to review the availability of similar storage systems with a view to increasing storage in the future if one can be found that offers savings to taxpayers and is better for the environment."