Week after week, there are accusations of bad faith, skullduggery and hidden agendas in relation to the £82 million National Conference Centre planned for North Wall Quay in the Dublin Docklands area - and the Government is furious about it all.

It is clear that there has been a complete breakdown of trust between the developers, Spencer Dock International (SDI), and the Dublin Docklands Development Authority (DDDA). This is evident from documents seen by The Irish Times as well as from interviews with the main participants.

SDI - a consortium consisting of Treasury Holdings and Mr Harry Crosbie, originator of the Point Depot and a new venue in the Liberties - angrily maintains that the docklands authority is seeking to scupper its plans by throwing what it sees as an inexplicable series of spanners into the works.

The authority, however, fears that it is being set up as a scapegoat should SDI fail to deliver the conference centre. In the propaganda war that has erupted between the two sides, it is already being painted into the black corner - somewhere it feels it does not deserve to be placed.

The row came to a head last month when the developers suspended work on the project after discovering that the docks authority had written to Dublin Corporation objecting to aspects of SDI's planning application for enabling works on the four-acre site at North Wall Quay.

A crisis meeting between the two sides turned into a "table-thumping session", in the words of one participant, with Mr Richard Barrett, director of Treasury Holdings, seeking an unequivocal guarantee that the docks authority would not appeal the matter to An Bord Pleanala.

At issue was the docklands authority's insistence that the conference centre should be pulled back 20 metres from the edge of Spencer Dock to facilitate the creation of a linear park along the Royal Canal, as envisaged in its master plan for the redevelopment of the redundant docklands area.

The authority believed the clearance of 6.5 metres (21.5 feet) between the dock basin and the massive gable wall of the conference centre, as approved by Dublin Corporation, would be too narrow to create a "meaningful" linear park - and it still firmly holds this view.

The developers, on the other hand, argue that the acceptance by Bord Failte last June of their tender to build the conference centre was so site-specific that it could not be shifted eastwards, even slightly, without running the risk of losing the £24 million EU grant for the project.

On October 27th, four days after permission was granted for the enabling works, which include major excavation and pile-driving, the authority gave an assurance that it would not appeal to An Bord Pleanala. And since there were no other appeals, SDI can now go ahead.

However, the authority has refused to give a prior commitment that it would sanction a "Section 25" planning scheme - taking the project outside the normal planning process - for the extended site of 32 acres until it first receives a firm indication from the developers on the form and content of what precisely they are planning to build there.

In its original tender for the project, SDI indicated that 3.2 million sq ft of space - offices, hotels, apartment blocks and retailing - would be required on the balance of the site to cross-subsidise the conference centre, which was likely to lose £104 million in its first decade.

This figure is made up of interest and capital repayments on the £82 million building as well as year-to-year operating losses. It had been anticipated that IFSC-style tax incentives would cushion the project, but opposition from Brussels effectively put an end to that prospect.

To compensate for the non-availability of lucrative tax incentives, SDI had to do its sums again. It calculated that much larger quantum of development -four million sq ft - would be required to provide an adequate economic grounding for the loss-making centre.

However, despite numerous requests from the authority to "flesh out" the extended scheme now being proposed so that it could be properly assessed in the context of the docklands master plan, the authority insists that all it has received so far consists of "two A4 drawings".

As long ago as July 30th, the authority made it clear that "no commitments can be given on site densities proposed until the resulting building volume is demonstrated in plan or section and preferably on a model". Exactly four months later, it is still waiting for such a model.

SDI's view, however, is that it cannot "waste" the time and talent of its 51-strong professional team - led by the Irish-born international architect, Mr Kevin Roche - producing the detailed information requested without any indication that it would win the docklands authority's approval.

A presentation to the authority was scheduled for November 17th, but it was cancelled by SDI apparently because key members of its design and planning team - some, such as Mr Roche, based in the US - were unable to attend. It has now been rescheduled for December 16th.

In the meantime, SDI has decided to abandon the "Section 25" route, which would have exempted the scheme from the regular planning process - thereby giving it greater certainty - in favour of seeking full planning permission from Dublin Corporation.

This dramatic change in strategy was put in train after the authority engaged architects Scott Tallon Walker to prepare a limited planning scheme for the four-acre conference centre site, leaving the preparation of a more comprehensive scheme for the remaining 28 acres until later.

SDI found this approach totally unacceptable because it maintained that there was no necessity to do a "quickie" planning scheme for the conference centre on its own, as the enabling works now approved by Dublin Corporation would carry the project forward until next July.

More seriously, the developers insist that the conference centre cannot be separated from the ancillary developments which are designed to underpin it financially. The lending banks, in particular, would be particularly keen to see the kind of space that would surround it.

Mr Barrett, of Treasury Holdings and SDI, said he had made clear to the docks authority that a standalone "Section 25" planning scheme for the conference centre was of no benefit in terms of progressing the project. "We have told them that we will not make any use of it," he said.

SDI's relationship with the docks authority deteriorated further after the developers lodged an official complaint to the Dail Committee of Public Accounts, claiming that the authority was wasting public money in commissioning a limited planning scheme for the four-acre site.

The authority sees this move as another example of posturing by SDI in the propaganda war between them. The authority's executive believes that it also calls into question the developers' commitment to proceed with the project - or, at least, the loss-making conference centre.

In a letter to Mr Barrett, the authority's chief executive, Mr Peter Coyne, said he was "very concerned that you may not be serious in your endeavour to secure the conference centre as you effectively disregarded our advice to you as to how best to proceed with the process.

"Furthermore, you have stated on more than one occasion that you would be much better off if the conference centre project were to fail and you were to develop CIE's land without it. That may be a simple statement of fact, but the implication is worrying," Mr Coyne wrote.

"I am not prepared to have the authority manoeuvred into the position of being the pretext for your withdrawal from the conference centre project. This authority is 100 per cent behind the project and, if you are also, you will stop all this adversarial posturing and give us your full co-operation."

The latest twists and turns in the saga are being closely monitored by the Government. Ministers are particularly angry with Treasury Holdings for its propaganda offensive against the authority, fearing that the real reason it is dragging its heels is that the sums no longer "stack up".

Not unreasonably, Treasury sources make the point that the reason why private developers are involved at all in planning what is, in essence, a major civic facility is that successive governments were determined that there could be no question of the Exchequer footing the bills.

Indeed, in order to insulate the Exchequer against the conference centre's losses, the present Government accepted that it would require ancillary development amounting to four million sq ft. Indeed, in approving the project, it sought an indemnity against its deficits for 20 years.

But the bad blood between SDI and the authority is not of recent vintage. Last January, even before tenders for the project were submitted to Bord Failte, SDI believed the authority was siding with one of the rival bidders, Mountbrook, and was seeking to "scupper" its project for Spencer Dock.

This is emphatically denied by the authority. But with so many allegations being traded it has become nearly impossible to unravel where the truth lies. "It's a bit like trying to catch quicksilver," one observer said, adding that if something was not worked out soon the project could be lost.

The developers are taking a risk by opting to go through the normal planning process, with a full planning application and environmental impact statement now likely to be lodged by the end of this year. Including the inevitable appeals to An Bord Pleanala, this could take at least six months.

Mr John Fitzgerald, the city manager, believes that the conference centre is a "musthave" project for Dublin. However, he emphasised that no prior commitment had been given, saying that the overall scheme - including all ancillary development - would have to be assessed in the normal way.

Given that the building programme for the conference centre would take 28 months, SDI is now in danger of losing the EU's £24 million grant, which has been on offer since 1994 and must be "drawn down" by December 31st, 2000 - unless it can persuade Brussels to extend this deadline.

Should the present consortium fail to deliver, the Government may decide to re-award the contract to another developer, perhaps for a scaled-down version of the conference centre now being proposed. After all, the spectacular Waterfront Hall in Belfast cost only £32 million.