Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 10 2014, 02:03 PM

http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/2014/town-council-legal-battle-in-crack-saga-continues-as-total-cost-passes-85000

£85,000 spent, only £6,000 of which is on repairs, and the council only have a contingency of £10,000 for all further repairs.

"Mr Swift-Hook said that was still not clear whether the hydrogeological report or any of the other investigations will ever be made public."

This nonsense has gone on long enough, it's time to publish the reports. https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/subsidance_damage_in_victoria_pa the Council would not even disclose the confidentiality agreement which they claim prevents them from disclosing the reports. The agreement itself can't possibly be classified - the Council have already told us what it is supposed to say. The only reason I can imagine for the Council withholding the confidentiality agreement is that it doesn't say what they claim, or it simply doesn't exist. Whether or not the council have mismanaged the cracks debacle, their commitment to open and accountable government is a miserable failure, and that is always a bad sign.

Posted by: On the edge Mar 10 2014, 05:02 PM

I think we'd be justified in assuming that the report does not support the council's case. After all, if it did, they'd publish and be confident of winning any action they chose to commence. This is a farce, it would be very amusing if we were we not paying so much.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 10 2014, 06:01 PM

Yes OtE, I agree. As the FoI request details, the story about the confidentiality agreement came out a very long time after the reports were written and it's implausible that the council had this confidentiality agreement and just didn't mention it when the failure to publish the reports was causing such controversy. It does point to the reports not supporting the council's case, and it's just this kind of mismanagement that open government is supposed to prevent.

Posted by: blackdog Mar 10 2014, 06:05 PM

Has anyone tried an FOI request on the lines of 'does the hydrological report support the council's case for compensation' as opposed to 'please let me have a copy of the report'?

Posted by: Cognosco Mar 10 2014, 06:52 PM

A well argued case but still non answers supplied by our, experts at giving non answer, council.
As suspected by many others the Council are in the smelly stuff and are now just praying it will all go quietly away, as usual, and keeping stum.
I am only surprised they did not answer No No No Yes!
I think this just confirms that there is something rotten in the Borough of Newbury?

Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 10 2014, 07:06 PM

What don't get if this version is correct, is why didn't the council, realising they had weak evidence, just not say so? They could have easily just said 'we have spent £x and the evidence we have is not strong enough to merit any more expense, please direct all enquiries to WBC'.

Posted by: Lolly Mar 10 2014, 07:10 PM

What I don't understand is how the Town Council can refuse the confidentiality agreement saying that it too was provided in confidence.

"Point 6 - The confidentially requirement was received from the third party
but we are withholding since we consider that the exemption under the
Freedom of Information Act (2000) Section 41 – Information provided in confidence" - applies to it.

Posted by: Cognosco Mar 10 2014, 07:27 PM

Oh dear I feel another couple of Vexatious Complainant notices are about to be issued?

Lolly please don't expect any replies as NTC Don't do replies; at least not any that anyone can understand!

I just don't understand why they won't just throw their hands up and admit we have gaffed again........ or is there an election over the horizon?

Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 10 2014, 07:28 PM

I have a feeling that Mark Knight is dancing dangerously close to you know what!

Posted by: Cognosco Mar 10 2014, 07:41 PM

I hope he is not an allotment tenant?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 10 2014, 07:51 PM

FoI gives you a right (subject to some exceptions) to "information", and that includes documents and other recorded data, but that information has to already exist. The council will of course answer "yes" to the question you pose, and if they're right then fine, what what if they are mistaken or lying. It is necessary to put into the public domain all the information to allow the public to engage meaningfully with this issue and decide for themselves.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 10 2014, 08:05 PM

I know, it's absurd. It's necessary to see the agreement now just to understand why the council don't want to disclose it. The most obvious reason is that they have something to hide, but it's also entirely possible that they simply don't believe that their parishioners should be so presumptuous as to question their authority.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 10 2014, 08:21 PM

It's entirely possible that the council's actions are completely supported by the evidence and that the decision to withhold the reports is just irrational. It's also possible that from the first report it was clear that there wasn't the necessary evidence to support their position but that through some irrational fear of failure they felt unable to face that reality and so just ploughed on, and the further on they went the more they had to hide, and the more they had to hide the further on they had to go. We need to see the reports to be able to decide for ourselves which it is.

Posted by: On the edge Mar 10 2014, 10:23 PM

For the Council. This looks like a catch 22 situation. If they win, their damages are highly likely to be far less than the cost of restoring Victoria Park, no matter what larding is included in the costs - you never get all your legal fees back. All pretty pointless really. Let's face it, had it been published at the time, hidden away on their web site, I suspect very few of us would have bothered to read it. All this from the party of 'open government'!!!

Posted by: On the edge Mar 10 2014, 10:28 PM

Well being banned from using other Council facilities might mean an allotment would be a suitable final resting place...!

Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 11 2014, 12:35 AM

Or more likely they have been advised by a legal adviser not to.

What I don't understand is why this isn't for WBC? What are they doing allowing a tin pot council take on the big boys? Come to think of it, didn't someone from WBC say they would help NTC expedite the conclusion?

Posted by: On the edge Mar 11 2014, 07:50 AM

Again, hiding the report could well suggest that WBC actually DID give advice, which wasn't taken! The trouble here being that the outcome is not quite so obvious as the armchair pundits suspected. Sadly, not publishing means it that it looks as if the report was commissioned simply to satisfy the vanity of the Town Council.

Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 11 2014, 11:11 AM

Can confidentiality agreements be challenged when they concern a public body?

Posted by: On the edge Mar 11 2014, 12:33 PM

Yes. In practice, there are very few real reasons why a public authority could legitimately sign a confidentiality agreement. So the public interest test would be applied when challenged. In this case, what purpose can the confidentiality agreement actually serve?

Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 11 2014, 02:05 PM

My guess then is that the developer's report was only going to be handed over if the council would sign an agreement, or by court order. What does surprises me is that something like that report isn't with Building Control (or whoever) anyway! I can't see this as NTC's battle to fight.

Posted by: Exhausted Mar 11 2014, 05:32 PM

I have to agree with this. The development was approved by WBC, they have all the trained staff, engineers and building surveyors so must carry some if not all the responsibility for the way the buildings were erected and for ensuring that the regulations have been adhered to. So, why has this been left to a group of amateurs to resolve. WBC fell over backwards to accommodate everything that Standard Life and their developer wanted even allowing major changes so that they could squeeze in a further outlet, John Lewis. Some body, either WBC or Thames Water allowed the extraction of water and the construction of the pipelines into the Kennet, where is their participation..
There were so many underhand deals perpetrated by our council that one has to wonder if it's being kept under wraps to protect themselves from further revelations. Remember Pam letting the cat out of the bag over parking income, the sale of the site for a pound, the way some of the tenants and owners of properties were treated, the nodding through of the major design change for John Lewis, the climb down on the amount of low cost housing and the kickback that WBC had to pay. because of it...... and so on.

Posted by: On the edge Mar 11 2014, 06:01 PM

There is, of course, a massively unpopular reason. That is, the report suggests that the pumping did not cause, or was only a minor contributor to the problems in Victoria Park.

Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 11 2014, 06:03 PM

That doesn't explain WBC reticence, and even if true, what fool, or fools would pursue this: costing the public purse tens of thousands of pounds in legal fees. My guess is that the dewatering has contributed, but the argument rests on how much. If I were the owner and my nose was clean, I'd publish.

Posted by: Cognosco Mar 11 2014, 06:43 PM

Agree but what have the two local authorities got to worry about? Just cast minds back over the last few years? CCTV, Allotmentgate, Parkway, etc. They have not been held to account by ratepayers for all the snafu's therefore they are carrying on in the same tradition.......ignore the outcry it is only a few complainers and nothing will come of the complaints. Unfortunately it always ends up costing ratepayers money. Until the precept payers take it upon themselves to complain in large numbers and vociferously then things will not change?

There is no logical reason that I can see of for withholding the Hydrological Survey?

Posted by: dannyboy Mar 11 2014, 07:38 PM

I seem to remember making that assertion when the cracks first started appearing.


Problem was there were calls for public enquiries, halts to Constain's construction, general wailing & chest beating. Poor old NTC went with the consensus, the fools........

Posted by: dannyboy Mar 11 2014, 07:39 PM

There is no logical reason that I can see of for withholding the Hydrological Survey?

probably not - but it seems there is a good legal one.....

Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 11 2014, 07:44 PM

Looking in to it wasn't foolish, keeping going on thin evidence is.

Posted by: dannyboy Mar 11 2014, 07:46 PM

do you know something we don't?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 11 2014, 07:53 PM

I agree. Looking into it was prudent and entirely appropriate, but if the evidence didn't support further investigations and all those legal expenses then that was money poorly spent. Thing is we're denied the reports and so we can't make an informed opinion, and faced with the council's apparently unsupportable decision not to disclose the reports we're left guessing.

Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 11 2014, 08:02 PM

There is s strong possibility of that, but I'm not sure that it has anything to do with this thread.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 11 2014, 08:12 PM

That's yet to be seen. Actually it looks like the council doesn't have a good case for holding onto the reports, so if the complaint is made the Information Commissioner may end up ordering the Council to disclose the reports, though that process takes a while to run.

I think the Council needs to take some good advice on the requirements of open government and then publish the findings. Doing this would engage with the legitimate concerns of the precept payers, and if they acknowledge any problems the review turns up it will restore some considerable confidence in the council's commitment to open and accountable government. Ignoring the criticism will just compound their problems.

They could engage someone http://www.cfoi.org.uk/ to critique their handling of the request.

Posted by: MontyPython Mar 11 2014, 08:16 PM

We asked for action to be taken - and part of that was the survey that , as taxpayers, we have funded. All we have asked for is for either :

1) Action be taken against the developer (as money has been spent on lawyers one must presume there is a case)

or

2) We see the results of the survey we funded (If Costain provided additional info that we did not fund this element may be withheld)

In the case of 2 though we should be told why NTC proceeded on further costly legal expenditure and under whose advice this deemed prudent.

Once one of the above has been provided we will cease to complain on the issue, save that if on being told there was no case, those of us who requested action (myself included) will apologise for the waste of money to those who wanted no survey.

Not really a difficult request even for NTC!

Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 11 2014, 08:19 PM

Well put.

Posted by: On the edge Mar 11 2014, 09:56 PM

You weren't the only one, not by a long chalk. The consensus was theirs!

Posted by: Cognosco Mar 12 2014, 07:56 PM

Are you trying to imply that NTC listens to precept payers.......go and wash your mouth out!

Posted by: dannyboy Mar 13 2014, 12:15 AM

So funny.

You're not even happy when they do.

Posted by: MontyPython Mar 13 2014, 03:13 PM

But they haven't yet that's the problem - but as usual you seem to blind to see it!

So far they have gone to all the expenditure but not given us the results either in compensation from the developer or a published report from the experts that our money has funded.

Posted by: Cognosco Mar 13 2014, 03:58 PM

I would be happy if they did get something correct for a change, even if it was accidentally!
Or even if they apologised for everything they got wrong......but of course they would not do that would they....goes against the training that you council employees receive eh?

Posted by: dannyboy Mar 17 2014, 12:50 PM

seems that they did & wasted a shed load of cash trying to prove that Constain were to blame for some cracks appearing.

Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 17 2014, 01:06 PM

It's a bit early to be saying that I think, although the outlook doesn't look good.

Posted by: MontyPython Mar 17 2014, 06:13 PM

Are you really so stupid that you can't understand the point I am making (perhaps you do work for WBC).

All we are asking for is to see the report we have funded (if Costain are not to blame) or action against Costain or compensation if they are.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 17 2014, 06:53 PM

This is really the issue and the point MontyPython is making: we just don't know. The hydrogeological reports can tell us how likely it was that the dewatering damaged the park, and with the costings report from the quantity surveyor we can decide for ourselves whether the damage justified pursuing the case.

If the Information Commissioner agrees with the council that they couldn't disclose the hydrogeological reports and that it wasn't in the public interest to disclose the costings report then fair enough (though I think the council might have made a better fist of justifying the non-disclosure), but if it turns out that the council were unfairly withholding reports which didn't support the council's pursuing of the case then that'll be a serious matter.

Posted by: dannyboy Mar 19 2014, 10:48 AM

Nah, I'm not that stupid.

NTC should never have bothered getting a report in the first place, as it was bleedin obvious it would be inconclusive.....

that it is confidential is par for the course. I'm surprised you think otherwise.

Posted by: On the edge Mar 19 2014, 11:44 AM

This week's free paper from the bin in the Library had a front page spade with Councillor Allen saying he was running out of patience with Costain! So are we Councillor Allen, so are we.

He goes on to say the Council has a strong and robust case and every right both morally and legally to issue instructions.

GET ON WITH IT THEN!

As you feel the case is so good, you can't loose. Let's face it, if if was just one of us little people who'd transgressed, I doubt if our local councils would stay proceedings for very long. So what's the problem?

Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 19 2014, 12:59 PM

Is there not a planning/building/environment authority who would have these type of reports for public record? Surely it is down to the WBC to ensure the environment is not adversely affected buy new developments? Should they not have monitored the situation? Normally it is the 'landlord' that deals with these sort of things? I understand that NTC are simply the 'management'.

Posted by: dannyboy Mar 19 2014, 01:53 PM

I'm sure there is.

I'm also pretty sure that the plans to build a ruddy great big housing & commercial development were drawn up with full concern for any environmental impact.

What they won't take into account is the effect of the development + a drought.

Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 19 2014, 04:14 PM

Your assessment has no foundation (pardon the pun) unless you happen to be a geologist of course. That is to say: so what if there was a drought?

My original point is 'they' are obliged to make an environmental assessment. I would have thought a hydrological report would have formed a part of this, bearing-in-mind the area is notoriously 'wet'.

Posted by: dannyboy Mar 19 2014, 04:21 PM

So what if there was a drought? You get cracks as the ground dries out.

A hydrological report is a certainty - that why the builders knew they'd need to do some dewatering....

Posted by: Cognosco Mar 19 2014, 06:21 PM

Ah but only the hole they dug for the car park needing de-watering Victoria Park and it's environs did not that is the problem isn't it? If you stop the equivalent of what amounts to a river flowing whatever is downstream will dry out and crack up and alter that environment.

Mind you we have the whole £1.00 profit we made from the sale of the land so perhaps we should be doffing our caps to the benevolent Standard Life? Perhaps you should be posting how ungrateful the plebs of Newbury are?

Posted by: dannyboy Mar 19 2014, 06:24 PM

hence the problem of trying to blame Costain for cracks in Victoria Park.

Posted by: Lolly Mar 19 2014, 06:25 PM

I've had a look and there is loads of environmental information with the planning documents which presumably was given careful scrutiny by West Berkshire Council. I haven't gone through to see if there is a hydrological report but it would be too technical for me anyway. Documents are here if anybody fancies trawling through them:

http://planning.westberks.gov.uk/rpp/index.asp?caseref=05/02843/FULMAJ

Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 19 2014, 07:09 PM

Yes, but are you prepared to bet your life savings that the dewatering (or the development itself) had nothing to do with the problems in Vickie Park?


So why cannot that be used then? Also, was there any contingency for monitoring the water table during the works? Can it be demonstrated that the water table fell in accordance with the lack of rain and increased sunlight, or not?

Posted by: dannyboy Mar 19 2014, 07:13 PM

I think I have already said, months ago, that the problem is there won't be any unequivocal proof that the dewatering was to blame. For every 'expert' who says it is, there will be one who says it isn't. The only winners will be the lawyers.

Posted by: On the edge Mar 19 2014, 07:43 PM

No, you've got that wrong. NTC who have the report are saying very clearly that their case against Costain is rock solid. As our civic leaders, they will be relying on expert advice and guidance, otherwise they couldn't and wouldn't be making such statements. Costain clearly aren't going to hand over the cash until the last moment; who would? So there is absolutely no reason for any delay in starting proceedings is there; what have they got to loose?

Posted by: On the edge Mar 19 2014, 07:43 PM

No, you've got that wrong. NTC who have the report are saying very clearly that their case against Costain is rock solid. As our civic leaders, they will be relying on expert advice and guidance, otherwise they couldn't and wouldn't be making such statements. Costain clearly aren't going to hand over the cash until the last moment; who would? So there is absolutely no reason for any delay in starting proceedings is there; what have they got to loose?

Posted by: dannyboy Mar 19 2014, 07:57 PM

So they are experts all of a sudden are they? If it were so, why are they not in court ?

the whole thing is a total waste of cash.

Posted by: Andy Capp Mar 19 2014, 08:06 PM

Taking steps to investigate the problem was incumbent on either WBC or NTC, but to pursue it like they have is another matter. Yes, lawyers are getting rich, but then it seems ill-advised of NTC to have continued with this without the backing of WBC, who I am sure were originally behind them on this.

I think it would be quite reasonable of us to ask who decided the strategy regarding the pursuit of all this. If all your opinions are fairly accurate, then someone, or some people are guilty of a rather big balls up.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Mar 19 2014, 08:07 PM

I'm entirely with you here DB, though I think OtE had his tongue in his cheek.

Posted by: Nothing Much Mar 19 2014, 08:45 PM

though I think OtE had his tongue in his cheek

Bleedin' ironyists get everwhere.
ce

Posted by: On the edge Mar 19 2014, 09:08 PM

I've been following your lead on the DIY front, but not grouting, just sticking things with strong glue....the smell is lovely......

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 5 2014, 01:10 PM

...

Posted by: On the edge Apr 5 2014, 09:04 PM

If they keep quiet long enough everyone will have forgotten about it.....


Just a thought, isn't it rather foolhardy to even contemplate another brand new construction (vis the proposed tea room) no matter how nice on such an apparently unstable site?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Apr 5 2014, 09:10 PM

I think the site's fine, it's the instability of the council that concerns me.

Town Meeting Monday evening, perhaps someone should demand some openness - if you don't mind being smeared as Vexatious.

Posted by: Cognosco Apr 6 2014, 10:39 AM

Are you going Simon?

Can you imagine them letting the plebs ask such questions on such a well orchestrated back patting pantomime?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Apr 6 2014, 10:55 AM

Fcuk no. I want nothing to do with the tyrants and their corrupt regime, and I don't think anyone else should collaborate with them either, because it just lends credibility to what is a failed organisation.


I can certainly imagine them victimising anyone who should try.

Posted by: dannyboy Apr 7 2014, 06:11 PM

I can certainly imagine them victimising anyone who should try.

reminds me of this forum......

Posted by: Simon Kirby Apr 7 2014, 06:38 PM

In what way do you feel forumistas are victimised for asking difficult questions?

Posted by: pbonnay Apr 7 2014, 08:23 PM

Well, I do see people victimised on this board, whether or not they post....sometimes with vindictive and unpleasant comments.

A couple of days ago, on another thread, you wished the plague on the houses of people you have had a disagreement with, having weaved your allotment dispute into yet another thread.

Do you really wish great ill on them and their families?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Apr 7 2014, 08:32 PM

OK, I see that. You feel that I victimise the town council because of the way they have behaved towards me. I'm not going to get into that, so I think I'll just flounce.

Posted by: dannyboy Apr 7 2014, 09:53 PM

You are not that daft Simon that I need to spell it out........

Posted by: The Hatter Apr 8 2014, 08:39 PM

You must have a very protected life if you think you've detected rudeness or victimisation on this forum it's one of the most gentlemanly I know It seems like a group of old men slapping each other with dead fish. 'A plague of houses' is simply a common term, my boss uses if all the time, because he's too posh to swear

Posted by: The Hatter Apr 8 2014, 08:41 PM

That looks like you have lost your nerve!

Posted by: MontyPython Apr 8 2014, 09:14 PM

You're trying to out me aren't you?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9SSOWORzw4

Posted by: pbonnay Apr 9 2014, 09:26 AM

Er, my post was a little tongue in cheek and was only highlighting some hypocrisy.

To those who like to misquote Shakespeare & Leviticus I would point to Luke 6:31, "Do unto others...



...in objecting to planning applications?

Posted by: The Hatter Apr 9 2014, 11:54 AM

But of course.

Posted by: dannyboy Apr 9 2014, 12:00 PM

LOL,

let me see now - this forum is basically the sounding board for a small group of men who in one way or another have lost out against the local council ( parking ticket, planning application, etc etc ) & instead of accepting that & moving on with their lives can't get over the fact that they were wrong, so instead they rant on incessantly & at great length to all & sundry how everything could be better if only they had their way & things were done according to their personal POV, not withstanding the fact that most of the time they are contradictcing themselves.

and woe be tide anyone who should just say - 'get over it' - for in order to negate anything & everything the 'just get over it' person says, in the mind of the few they must be a council stooge, or on the council payroll or just saying it beacuse they have a vested interest, and then the other few get on the band wagon & before you know it another poster has decided this forum isn't worth the bother & were are left with the same few miserable old gits.

this forum is basically about

I am right & I told the council I was right, but they didn't listen ( as they have actually to think about the rights of 35,000 people & not just me but I can't see thet cos I am the centre of my universe ) so now anything & everything that they do must be wrong & I must tell everyone & anyone who will listen that they are WRONG!!!

Posted by: dannyboy Apr 9 2014, 12:02 PM

good enough for you?

Posted by: dannyboy Apr 9 2014, 12:03 PM

I say carry on as we are, but just make sure there are websites with forums so we can all gather round and moan about it. The vast majority of people don't care.

Posted by: MontyPython Apr 9 2014, 12:14 PM

Well done Dannyboy - showing your inability to understand the English language and what people have posted.

With the exception of Simon and his clear grievance with the council I am unaware of any of the posters who have a direct problem with a planning process or parking ticket. I certainly haven't.

Many including me are not complaining so much about the decisions more the underhand methods and tactics used by those in office who have made or influenced those decisions. Our other grievance is wasting of public money.

Posted by: dannyboy Apr 9 2014, 12:30 PM

LOL, no direct problems - just cos they ain't said so don't make it untrue.


wasting public money - LOL - that isn't how it comes across.

Posted by: The Hatter Apr 9 2014, 12:41 PM

Yeah, so what! Lighten up, people moan; they always have. Who do you know who isn't in it for themselves, it's human nature. In a way it's pretty good that people feel they can say they don't believe the bollocks the council comes up with.

Posted by: dannyboy Apr 9 2014, 12:43 PM

so what - well you asked so I answered.

yeah but on here it is always dressed up as 'i'm doing it for the gipper'

Posted by: On the edge Apr 9 2014, 12:54 PM

Interesting one this. Over the years, I've consistently given FGW a good kicking and Biker1, for whatever reason, has robustly defended them. We are still on the forum and haven't gone elsewhere. Several other services and utilities get the same treatment and have their regular detractors and defenders. However, you are right, it's quite noticeable that our local authorities have very few regular defenders and those there are seem to have very thin skins. That might tell you something.

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 9 2014, 12:58 PM

And your 'motives' or inspiration are otherwise altruistic?

What I find so disappointing is that few, if any, people in authority can find the wherewithal to address some of the points made on here.

Posted by: dannyboy Apr 9 2014, 01:35 PM

probably because they have better things to do with their time than attempt to reconcile the inconsolable.

altrusitic. I get parking tickets because I flount the rules. Fair cop. I pay up. I don't try & claim that it is the system that is wrong.

when the bollards were taking out a vehicle a month, never once did a single driver have the balls to say - I tried it on & failed. It was always 'the signs werre wrong, the signs were hidden, the signs were hard to understand, the road layout is confusing', etc etc etc.

MP states that he is against wasting public money. Yet I don't remember seeing any comments on the Parkway bridge ticket thread ( except from Spartacus & look where that got him ) saying 'you got caught out, pay the fine'. Instead we get umpteen posts about the legality of the signs, the postition of the signs, the use of the parking ticket tribunal, the evil council making money out of the innocent etc etc.

Personally I can't see the problem. The signs in plain english say that certain vehicles can't use the bridge. End of story. Arguing techincalities over the wording is a far bigger waste of tax payers money - get rid of the tribunal if you really want to save some public money.

Posted by: dannyboy Apr 9 2014, 01:37 PM

It tells me they have better things to do with their time than argue the toss.

Posted by: On the edge Apr 9 2014, 02:00 PM

It tells me that they are simply arrogant, now known as the Maria Miller syndrome.

Posted by: dannyboy Apr 9 2014, 02:20 PM

yeah, of course, given the chance to claim dubious expences we'd not......

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 9 2014, 02:31 PM

If that is the case, I suggest they should have considered an alternative vacation than politics. There appears at least one that doesn't feel like that, and all power to him. If he can, others can.


I'm talking about your motives; not others. What motivates you to keep posting similar posts about peoples' complaints on here? Why do you feel the need to continually focus on complainants on this forum?

Posted by: dannyboy Apr 9 2014, 02:52 PM

Thats all this forum is about - moaning.

Why do you feel the continous need to post about my posts?

Posted by: MontyPython Apr 9 2014, 04:06 PM

We do praise WBC when they do some good, unfortunately that doesn't happen often.

You rarely post any constructive argument and reasoning in your posts, and frequently seem not to display the intelligence to understand the questions raised. I am sure this is not always the case and that you often post just to be obstructive and to deflect criticism from the authorities.

Posted by: On the edge Apr 9 2014, 04:32 PM

No, frankly many 'little people' wouldn't. I still see many examples where people could over claim, but don't out of a sense of personal honour. They also hand in purses and money found on the street. They also work before and after time etc. etc.

I went through and signed a pile of staff expense forms this lunch time. Travel expenses where no matter where the journey had started, the daily usual home to office bit had been deducted, each claim was substantiated by receipts, even for trivial amounts.

The body rots from the head, and given the example of their leaders, the 'everyone is on the make' attitude which pervades public service isn't so surprising.
l

Posted by: MontyPython Apr 9 2014, 04:52 PM

So you would willingly claim expenses you were not really entitled to would you - but someone who misses a sign and therefore commits a minor traffic offence must be punished at all costs. Maybe it's because it pays your wages and dubious expenses

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 9 2014, 05:17 PM

Because I have thing about about evasive hypocrites!

Posted by: dannyboy Apr 9 2014, 06:00 PM

don't we all.

Posted by: dannyboy Apr 9 2014, 06:01 PM

I would.

Posted by: dannyboy Apr 9 2014, 06:03 PM

so predictable.

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 9 2014, 06:08 PM

QED

Posted by: On the edge Apr 9 2014, 06:08 PM

Quite, so why do you defend it so much

Posted by: dannyboy Apr 9 2014, 06:20 PM

err, cos I don't agree with you.

sure there are faults, but there are faults in everything.

Posted by: On the edge Apr 9 2014, 09:23 PM

Might be worth trying to explain why; rather than the usual terse non informative comment. You might, just might, change my mind. That's what debate in democratic circles is all about.

Yes, there are faults, everywhere, some of us like to try and put them right. Silly I know, but kids didn't actually like going up chimneys.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Apr 16 2014, 08:51 PM

So anywho, sorry to keep coming back to this, but having spent the best part of a hundred grand, where are we exactly? I think an update from the NWN is in order, or are we now expected to forget it all ever happened? The council have refused to let us see the hydrogeological reports on the grounds of a questionable confidentiality clause which they also won't let us see. It's a lot of public money at stake here, and this nonsense has dragged on far far too long.

Posted by: Cognosco Apr 17 2014, 05:56 PM

I thought I read that one of the Councillors was stamping his foot and saying he'd had enough if they got no response he was taking it to court???? Mind you that was a few weeks ago now.........so I read that as Costains has called the Councils bluff and was just ignoring them knowing that the Council would just fade away?

But no doubt Dannyboy and User will say I have got it wrong!

Posted by: Simon Kirby Apr 17 2014, 08:22 PM

You hear councillors huffing and puffing a lot, but I want to see the money. Given the council's questionable secrecy it looks so much like the council have taken a punt on a dispute that never had the legs to run. If they've started court action then I think the NWN could at least report that fact so we know where we are with this thing.

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 17 2014, 08:29 PM

Perhaps the recent court action regards the building accident at Parkway has derailed their intentions.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Apr 17 2014, 09:19 PM

It would be good to know. There may come a time when the town council simply drops the matter and says nothing, hoping that people will just forget about it, and I'm wondering if we're at that point now.

Posted by: Cognosco Apr 18 2014, 08:20 AM

Perhaps that is why it is taking so long.......they, the Council, know that there are certain people who will not let them forget about it? They are unable to dream up something or put a spin on it so that they don't appear to come out of it looking like the complete wallies that they are? Trouble is it will take a lot of spin or deflection to persuade a rather lot of people they aren't?
Methinks Dannyboy and User will have to work rather a lot of overtime on this one to try and spin a favorable outcome for them?
But as they say time will tell! Providing any of us are still alive by time any of it is made public of course?

Posted by: user23 Apr 18 2014, 08:22 AM

That front page article prompted by one of the town councilors suggests otherwise.

Posted by: Cognosco Apr 18 2014, 09:05 AM

Yes well.......it's like with the Prime Minister stating someone has his full backing and a few days later that someone resigns! Usually just a last ditch desperate attempt to ward of the inevitable?
I await with bated breath for the explanation of why this has dragged on so long and no court proceedings are even over the horizon yet alone on it? :rolleyes

Still it is only taxpayers money that is lost so no need for the Councillors to panic is there? Elections looming so drag it out till after them and then try to put a good spin on it eh User?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Apr 18 2014, 12:25 PM

I'm not seeing anything about it on yesterday's front page, was there something last week? Was it just repeating the council's recent willie-waving, or was it actually reported that the council had issued a county court claim for damages.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Apr 18 2014, 12:34 PM

I don't think they have anything to worry about. Of the fifteen-odd thousand households that pay council tax I doubt there's half a dozen people who would even notice if the council just let it drop, and the worst any of them might do is write a letter to the local paper - and that would be it. Our town council is unaccountable because we, the tax-paying electorate, aren't bothered.

Posted by: On the edge Apr 18 2014, 02:26 PM

Spot on!

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 18 2014, 02:45 PM

Snap!

Posted by: Dodgys smarter brother. Apr 18 2014, 06:14 PM

That would only require a very small number of column inches.

Posted by: dannyboy Apr 18 2014, 06:55 PM

Spin on it?

Err, since day one I have said the entire cracks saga has been a total waste of time & money.

And I was right.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Apr 18 2014, 08:28 PM

That's no way to talk about council members!

Posted by: On the edge Apr 18 2014, 08:36 PM

Not sure about that, to cut back what they spend, you'd need a pretty big chopper..

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 19 2014, 09:53 AM

What is it you are 'right' about? I was unaware this issue was closed. As for a waste of money, that might true, but that could easily be down to the way our apparent inept council have managed the affair. It is reasonable for them to have spent some money on investigating the issue, although I still don't know why the West Berks Council haven't taken up the issue; it is their land and it is they who are the building and environmental authority. They have been completely negligent in all this I feel.

Posted by: dannyboy Apr 19 2014, 11:18 AM

when Riuchard Garvie, and 90% of posters to this forum, were calling for a public inquiry into crackgate I said that any inquiry would prove nothing.

I was right.

councillors have a tendency not to be able to keep their mouths shut & the fact that not a single 'off the record' nugget of information about the cracks in Victoria Park has been forethcoming tells me that there isn't anything to tell.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Apr 19 2014, 11:25 AM

I agree that it was appropriate for the town council to investigate the issue, but they have hidden the results of that investigation from us and have so far not given a plausible reason for acting in that way. For me that unwarranted secrecy is reason enough to out the current administration at the next election even if they end up winning enough damages in court to cover the whole of the alleged damage and all of the legal costs in pursuing the claim.

Of course, if it turns out that the reports were unlawfully withheld and that no right-minded individual would have pursued the claim on the strength of the reports, and particularly if the council fail to win enough damages even to cover the cost of pursuing the claim, then it'll end the political careers of those responsible and might just be emetic enough to purge the administration of its ineptitude - that's almost worth the £250k that this snafu is likely to cost the town.

Posted by: dannyboy Apr 19 2014, 11:28 AM

dream on.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Apr 19 2014, 11:38 AM

Did he do that? I remember some hoo-ha (from user wasn't it?) about his demand for a public inquiry into somethin or other, but I thought it was WBC-related, not Parkgate.


I appreciate your reasoning, but you're forgetting that NTC councillors really don't get involved with council business and I doubt any of them have actually given the hydrogeological reports much study but have simply gone along with what they were told to do.

It is curious that, if the council has such robust evidence that dewatering was unequivocally responsible for the damage they allege, that they haven't published the reports as that would presumably garner much public support, so it's reasonable to assume the opposite, but that's forgetting quite how pathologically screwed-down the council is.

It's entirely possible that they're not disclosing the reports simply because they don't like people discussing their business - even though it's business that we pay for and have a right to be involved in.

Posted by: MontyPython Apr 19 2014, 11:55 AM

What evidence have you got for this? None i presume!

We called for a report and were happy to have the council pay for that, in that it was justified to see if there was a case to answer. If they have spent much more on legal cost I hope that means they have a case to take to court, otherwise they have wasted this element of public funds.

Posted by: dannyboy Apr 19 2014, 12:01 PM

you can read it all here on this forum.

Posted by: dannyboy Apr 19 2014, 12:03 PM

there is no hard & fast evidence. there is nothing to disclose.

your eagerness to ridicule NTC is deluding you.

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 19 2014, 12:28 PM

Is this by hind sight, or private knowledge? However, JSH has claimed that the report shows that the development has had an adverse impact on the park, so what you say is not true. Unless, of course, you know things about this that we don't.

Posted by: dannyboy Apr 19 2014, 12:35 PM

hindsight.

the fact they nothing has been done, nothing has been said tells an awful lot - so long as you don't look at it through NTC / WBC tinted glases.

I don't doubt that Parkway has / did affrect the park - but not in a way that is implicitly demonstrable in a court of law. Which is what I said right at the beginning.

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 19 2014, 12:39 PM

If it is hindsight, then it is a simple case of being 'lucky'. Hardly a case of superior ceribel capacity.

But I insist that it is West Berkshire Council at fault here. They bent over backwards to get Parkway built, it is they that failed to put in proper measures to monitor the water content of the area. Had they done so, none of this would be an issue.

Posted by: dannyboy Apr 19 2014, 12:49 PM

luck isn't a factor. it was bloody obvious.

Posted by: Cognosco Apr 19 2014, 02:16 PM

As though we would ever doubt that you could be wrong?

Posted by: dannyboy Apr 19 2014, 02:17 PM

Well, I never am, am I.

Posted by: Cognosco Apr 19 2014, 02:23 PM

Well not through your eyes.......but others?

Posted by: dannyboy Apr 19 2014, 02:46 PM

err , you - otherwise why'd you say As though we would ever doubt that you could be wrong

Posted by: Simon Kirby Apr 19 2014, 03:25 PM

The council have refused to disclose the hydrogeological reports - the council have spent a further £70k-odd on legal fees on the strength of these reports and the public has a right to see the reports and judge for ourselves whether this interminable and costly dispute was prudent - the council need to disclose those reports.


Your constant mealy-mouthed ad hominem makes this forum a dreary place and I really wish you'd give it a rest.

Posted by: user23 Apr 19 2014, 03:42 PM

Spot on comment about what some might consider the town troll.

Posted by: MontyPython Apr 19 2014, 03:49 PM

Typical council response - anyone who complains is a troll or vexatious.

The usual response from those who are incompetent or not working in the public interest!

Posted by: Simon Kirby Apr 19 2014, 04:27 PM

You think I'm deluded? Fine, talk to some councillors like I have and ask them to tell you honestly whether they have studied the hydrogeological report. Ask them if they have formed their own informed evidence-based opinion on the merits of the council pursuing the claim or whether they haven't really taken much interest in the details and have just let it happen.

And then ask them why, when the evidence is as robust as they say it is, that they won't disclose the hydrogeological reports so that we, the tax-paying public, can form our own opinion on the merits of the council's conduct.

Really, go on.

Posted by: pbonnay Apr 19 2014, 06:04 PM

Apologies if I am not up to speed, but is there still a genuine and realistic prospect of legal action? If so, then I can see reasons for the expert report not being released into the public domain at his stage.

If the prospect of action is diminishing, then so is the argument for not making the report public.

I can understand the perception that there is obfuscation by the relevant parties.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Apr 19 2014, 07:12 PM

There are only limited grounds for refusing a request for information under the Environmental Information Regulations and the council's grounds for refusing to disclose the hydrogeological reports don't look strong. They are on firmer ground refusing to disclose the engineer's and the quantity surveyor's reports, but they're not so important as they only detail the cost of the alleged damage, it's the hydrogeological reports that are of most interest as the concern is that these reports were never strong enough to justify the time and expense of pursuing the claim.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/subsidance_damage_in_victoria_pa for a reasonably detailed request and critique of the council's refusal.

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 19 2014, 08:22 PM

Cobblers. You either know something or are lucky, notwithstanding the issue isn't over yet.

Posted by: blackdog Apr 19 2014, 11:20 PM

How can you be right about the results of an inquiry that hasn't happened?

Posted by: dannyboy Apr 20 2014, 11:22 AM

Coming from you that is a bit rich.

Posted by: dannyboy Apr 20 2014, 11:24 AM

I was right when I said trying to prove dewatering was the cause of the cracks in Victoria Park was an impossible task, and to attempt to do so was a fool's errand.

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 20 2014, 11:30 AM

It wouldn't have been hard had West Berkshire Council done their job.

Posted by: dannyboy Apr 20 2014, 11:31 AM

in what way?

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 20 2014, 11:38 AM

Proper monitoring of the environment. The project required dewatering, it would seem that no provision was put in place to monitor its affect on the environment.

Posted by: dannyboy Apr 20 2014, 11:48 AM

there would be no point.

all I'd get would be an answer in the form of obfuscation & waffle.

Posted by: Cognosco Apr 20 2014, 12:45 PM

Well that should pose no problem for our resident WBC and Newbury expert,; especially if you get User to assist you?

Posted by: Strafin Apr 20 2014, 12:56 PM

I think I'm with Dannyboy on this, there was no need for the study, no need for such scrutiny over something fairly obvious. They would have been better off giving the money to the Bowls Club

Posted by: Cognosco Apr 20 2014, 02:13 PM

So why give money to the bowls club? Were the bowls club not insured? Would not the insurance companies then claim any monies paid out back from Costains? What about the buildings affected by the cracking? I thought there was more damage than to the park alone?
Just how is the bowls club funded?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Apr 20 2014, 02:19 PM

It seems to me that an initial £5k hydrogeological study was prudent enough if they were looking at a potential £100k+ of damages, but when the study came back equivocal and when the damage turned out not to be so very great they should have dropped the matter, late 2010.

Initial quotes to bring the bowls club up to snuff were in the order of £20k, but that got talked-up and conflated with the cost of taking down some chronically under-managed conifers that shade the bowling greens.

The bowling greens and the rest of the alleged damage could have been put right by Spring 2011 for less than the council has spent so far on legal fees, and without Parkgate to distract the council they might not have muffed the Heritage Lottery Bid and we'd have got a park makeover at no cost to the tax-payer.

Would'a, could'a, should'a. They'll all get voted in again in 2015. Plus ça change...

Posted by: MontyPython Apr 20 2014, 02:52 PM

We should have given you the job then!

Posted by: On the edge Apr 20 2014, 03:57 PM

Quite so. I suspect that the wittering about the cost of repairing the Bowls club greens is simply larding a the claim. Even with the scant detail provided it's pretty obvious that this claim is pretty dubious to say the least.

Posted by: dannyboy Apr 20 2014, 04:21 PM

My hourly rates are beyond the coffers of NTC.

Posted by: dannyboy Apr 20 2014, 04:24 PM

Would not the insurance companies then claim any monies paid out back from Costains?

funny that - given that insurance companies / lawyers will chase the most dubious of claims if there is some cash to be made that no claim has been made.

Posted by: On the edge Apr 20 2014, 04:53 PM

Quite so, even the no win no fee boys give NTC a wide berth. As for the rightness or otherwise of commissioning the report in the first place, Andy Capp has really hit the nail in the head; consistently asking why the principle landlord and the authority agreeing to the pumping have remained so silent.

Posted by: dannyboy Apr 20 2014, 05:54 PM

asking why the principle landlord and the authority agreeing to the pumping have remained so silent

cos there is nothing to say. but you can't come out & say that, just in case.

Posted by: Strafin Apr 20 2014, 05:57 PM

I was making the point that if they are just throwing good money after bad, they could have done something with it that would have made a difference. They have essentially thrown it down the drain.

Posted by: On the edge Apr 20 2014, 07:25 PM

That's a real Sir Humphrey answer! Well done, WBC's PR people couldn't have done better.

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 20 2014, 11:06 PM

Just in case they (evidently) didn't do their job right.

There's no doubt in my mind that this is a West Berkshire Council F-up; NTC are just the Patsies.

Posted by: dannyboy Apr 21 2014, 08:32 AM

good for you. Just like the CCTV & every other SNAFU.........

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 21 2014, 09:07 AM

Well, if they are the authority then it stands to reason does it not?

Posted by: Cognosco Apr 21 2014, 10:27 AM

Well as you well know the saying goes " a leopard never changes it's spots".
At least it gives you the excuse for a bit of spin.........they are certainly consistent!

Posted by: Cognosco Apr 21 2014, 10:32 AM

And the NTC Precept payers are the ones having to put there hands in their pockets again!
Compared to these two local authorities the Sheriff of Nottingham appeared to be a benevolent benefactor!

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 11 2014, 07:48 PM

NTC are going to decide how to progress the cracks snafu on Wednesday evening in a secret sessions of the full council. Always disappointing when the council prevent public scrutiny of matters such as this, and I doubt very much if it would have dragged on as long as it has if they'd been open and transparent as government is required to be. We do after all pick up the bill for this. It's particularly unimpressive that they have still not disclosed the hydrogeological reports.

According to the council their case is robust so we can expect the council to begin court action without further delay. I'm guessing this is what they'll do, not so much because I think their case is robust, because I don't, but because the alternative of admitting that they've wasted the best part of £100k on a dispute that they should never have pursued will be just too painful. Starting legal action is the obvious answer for a council that's dug itself into a hole, because they can easily drag their heels for a couple more years and that will put off the inevitable crisis. They'll be able to hide behind their court action for years and years without saying anything at all about what's going on, and if it does all come to an end one day there's a good chance no one will notice.

It's just about within the realms of possibility that the council will decide to drop the matter and spin it as some kind of success, but the cracks snafu has been such a rich source of busy work for the council that I just can't see them letting it go. Of course a good strategy will just be to say nothing and carry on, and if we don't have definitive news that they have issued a county court claim then we can assume this is what they've decided to do. Whichever, I hope the NWN take the opportunity to cover the story with some in-depth analysis and comment, and I particularly hope that they look into the council's failure to disclose the reports and the soundness of the council's decisions there.

Posted by: Strafin May 12 2014, 12:35 AM

I think you're absolutely bang on.