A FIVE-year contract for grass-cutting in Craven has been extended for another year -despite complaints that the contractors' work was of poor quality.

Greg Robinson, the head of operational services at Craven District Council, admitted that the work carried out by the contractors, Serviceteam Ltd, was of such poor standard that he would not normally have recommended the contract be extended.

But, he said, due to the major transition the council was going through with the possible transfer of housing stock, it was not the right time to put the contract out to tender.

Speaking at the council's community services committee meeting, he said: "There have been problems with the contractor.

"Ordinarily I wouldn't recommend we renew the contract because there have been enough complaints."

Leader of the council, Coun Carl Lis, said: "Without doubt this is the wrong time to mess about with the contract.

"We are within weeks of the conclusion of the LSVT (large scale voluntary transfer) agreement and it is totally the wrong time. We should allow it to go on for 12 months until we have secured our future."

It was not a popular suggestion.

Coun John Sayer said: "The only way to get through to people who don't operate properly is not to employ them again. I think there is very good reason to look elsewhere."

But Coun Mike Doyle said that if the council was not in a position to put the tender out properly, it was better to wait than encounter the same problems again.

"We should do the simple thing of quietly extending what we have currently got and then go out to tender rigorously.

"I don't want to see it done badly for another year but I would much rather it is done right for the next 10 years after that."

Coun Philip Barrett said that he had also received a number of complaints over the last year.

"I would like an assurance that we have increased monitoring of this contract and for this to be front-loaded. In the past this authority has tended to cut down on monitoring and that has been a false economy."

Mr Robinson said that he could not give that reassurance.

He explained: "Monitoring is provided by a member of staff and there is no change in the resources for monitoring.

"I have been reassured by the contractor they are taking steps to rectify the management problems with the contract they had last year. It has been the failure of the contractor not the failure of the monitor that has lead to the problem."

Mr Robinson said the last year was not indicative of the entire contract, and for the first four years there had been nothing but praise for the contractors.

The committee reluctantly agreed to extend the contract but asked Mr Robinson to negotiate a shorter time period if possible and said they wanted to see a more stringent adherence to the original contract.