Buildings costs for the 2012 Aquatics Centre could shoot up by £11 million if the work is to hit completion dates for next year, official figures revealed today.
Data published by the government and Olympic Delivery Authority showed that overall construction and infrastructure costs for the London 2012 Games could fall by £29 million to £7.232 billion – including the savings of £20m identified as part of the spending review settlement.
However, the aquatics centre, which will host the competition’s swimming, diving and modern pentathlon event, could incur an extra price tag of £11m to “ensure the project remains on time and to standard”, the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games quarterly economic report revealed.
The report also identified a potential cost increase of £8m on Stratford City Land and Infrastructure due to the London Development Agency as part of the compulsory purchase order process and some additional infrastructure works, including a new pedestrian bridge.
As part of the government’s spending review settlements the final cost of the ODA programme is forecast to fall £20m. This will be achieved through anticipated savings of £7m by not proceeding with the plastic wrap around the Olympic Stadium, coupled with efficiency savings.
Olympic Delivery Authority chief executive David Higgins said the report demonstrated that the ODA continued to deliver on time and within budget.
“We have made savings as part of the spending review process without jeopardising successful delivery and in total have now saved over £750m since the start of the project to keep us on track,” he said.
“Today we are announcing that the roof of the handball arena is complete and across the rest of the Olympic Park progress is very visible with the velodrome set to be the first venue on site to be finished in 2011.”
Hugh Robertson, minister for sport and the Olympics, added: “The ODA has continued to drive down costs and deliver savings despite this being the most complex year in construction terms. The saving of £20m identified in the Spending Review has been achieved with little material impact to the programme.”