Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Penelope Nov 1 2012, 03:41 PM

So, Costains have delivered their (long overdue) report on the subsidence in the park and yet the council have not deemed it necessary to pass on the findings to the taxpayers, I wonder why?

Posted by: dannyboy Nov 1 2012, 03:54 PM

If you read the article, it tells you.

Posted by: Penelope Nov 1 2012, 04:38 PM

Oh you mean the bit where it says the information could be commercially sensitive. Do you still put letters up the chimney for Santa?

Posted by: dannyboy Nov 1 2012, 04:42 PM

bit further on than that - “I understand the frustrations of Newbury residents but we have to abide by the legal restrictions which are preventing us from publishing full details.”

Posted by: Cognosco Nov 1 2012, 04:46 PM

This is probably council speak for "Taxpayers get your hands in your pockets this is going to cost you"

Posted by: motormad Nov 1 2012, 04:56 PM

Aren't they the same legal restrictions which means we get FOI?!?

Posted by: Penelope Nov 1 2012, 05:09 PM

Those are the ones. It's our park! Heavily subsidised be us, and its "oh no, we can't tell you why we buggered it up"

Posted by: On the edge Nov 1 2012, 05:42 PM

Frankly you are right. This is actually quite astonishing. We have spent a large sum of money for absolutely nothing. This has been going on for two years - quite long enough. Rather than hiding behind lame excuses, the Council Leader should resign. The money could have been better spent elsewhere perhaps protecting some of the key services we've lost.

Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 1 2012, 05:55 PM

I think people might be speaking with an element of hind sight here. They were advised by the 'Uni' that did the test that it would be a 'few weeks' job and a few grand; however, it snowballed. I think the council were duty-bound to try and find out the route cause, but they have been caught-out by the vultures that are lawyers and a developer with a profit margin to protect.

Personally I think the whole thing is grossly indecent; surrendering a lot of public land for a few exclusive shops.

At the end of the day, 'if you dine with the devil, you will eventually find yourself on the menu'.

Posted by: Cognosco Nov 1 2012, 06:19 PM

Of which a large number are still empty!


Even more of a certainty when our local council has a hand in the proceedings!

Posted by: Adrian Hollister Nov 1 2012, 07:01 PM

I've got to get that line in a hustings or debate

Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 1 2012, 07:49 PM

I have heard rumours that Richard Garvie is claiming that the council are allegedly asking Costain to claim partial liability.

Posted by: dannyboy Nov 1 2012, 07:51 PM

you mean it wasn't totally the fault of the the drought?

Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 1 2012, 07:58 PM

I have no idea. I guess that the fault might be a combination of things. Mind you, it is only an allegation I have heard.

Posted by: dannyboy Nov 1 2012, 08:00 PM

Sounds logical - to try & get Costain to accept total liability would be a tall order.

Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 1 2012, 08:02 PM

Yes. I suppose both wish to avoid court and are holding out for an out of court settlement. If so, then there will always be a compromise. Especially when it cannot be proven beyond doubt.

Posted by: Berkshirelad Nov 2 2012, 04:52 PM

It's not a criminal matter, it's civil. The burden of proof is one of "on the balance of probability"

Posted by: Cognosco Nov 2 2012, 05:10 PM

The probability is that it is going to cost the taxpayer again if it works out to the standard that the council usually works to!

Posted by: On the edge Nov 2 2012, 05:29 PM

Don't really understand why the Council got involved in the first place. Should have just let the insurance companies fight it out.

Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 2 2012, 06:17 PM

If something can be proven beyond doubt (I didn't say beyond reasonable doubt), then it is immaterial whether it is a civil or a criminal matter; that is my point.

Posted by: user23 Nov 2 2012, 08:20 PM

Weren't there a few very vocal people calling for a public enquiry?

Posted by: motormad Nov 2 2012, 09:53 PM

Because they are the Council.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Nov 2 2012, 10:36 PM

There should be an enquiry.

Posted by: On the edge Nov 2 2012, 10:48 PM

Wholly agree. I can't understand why there is silence from the official opposition either? What is there to hide; its all going to come out one day, might as well make a start now. Should not the District Auditor be involved? Who authorised the spend without first assuring a publishable report would be delivered.

With apologies to the MOT thread. At least when you pay for an MOT you get a pass or fail certificate, not simply a note saying the Garage can't say anything in case the vehicle manufacturer wants to sue!

Posted by: Cognosco Nov 3 2012, 10:25 AM

Suspect faults on both sides - the Council had to try and divert attention from it was partly their fault in the first place and as the rabble they call taxpayers were getting restless they had to be seen to be doing something - the developer trying to limit the amount they would have to pay out?

Between the two the rabble they call taxpayers will probably have to put their hands in their pockets to save the face of both council and developer? Usual political - business I'm afraid.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Nov 3 2012, 11:53 AM

http://www.richardgarvie.org/?p=473

http://www.richardgarvie.org/?p=466

Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 3 2012, 11:59 AM

People often don't click through, so please post the text.

Posted by: blackdog Nov 3 2012, 12:20 PM

Richard - from your website you seem to have tweeted:
"Only Labour will have a local candidate in Newbury at 2015 election: @RichardBenyonMP from Reading West and @JudithBuntingLD from Twickenham"

Richard Benyon is still a resident in the Newbury constituency and will remain so unless Nick Clegg reverses the LD decision to block the boundary changes.

Should the proposed changes ever take place Englefield will move to the Wokingham constituency - so Benyon will still not be from Reading West.

How can you expect people to take you seriously when you are so out of touch with an issue of such impact on the constituency?

A few final questions - who have Labour selected as their Newbury candidate for the next election? Or UKIP? Are there no local independents standing next time? Will there really only be one two candidates (Labour & Benyon) resident in the constituency? What does your crystal ball say?

Posted by: dannyboy Nov 3 2012, 12:50 PM

Unsure - **** right. Why should more of my cash be wasted? another park in town was trashed only a week ago soley for commercial gain - lets have an enquiry about that too.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Nov 3 2012, 09:05 PM

Of the three main parties it will only be Labour. As for Mr Benyon, Englefield is in Reading West - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Englefield,_Berkshire - It may be in West berkshire, but it's actually not in the Newbury constituency.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Nov 3 2012, 09:09 PM

Northcroft was damaged due to a fun fair being held whilst it rained. Hardly need an enquiry to figure that out. The fair also have to pay for the land to be reinstated. That's exactly what we are asking from the company responsible for the cracks, if indeed they are responsible.

Posted by: John C Nov 3 2012, 09:12 PM

From you link "The village is situated in the district of West Berkshire, close to Reading. Other nearby places include Bradfield and Theale."

Posted by: dannyboy Nov 3 2012, 09:39 PM

Do we need a fair? Lets enquire about that.


if indeed...........$6 million question.

Posted by: On the edge Nov 3 2012, 09:59 PM

The Fair damaged Northcroft, and its easily repairable even if it does take time.

The Victoria Park issue is very different and concerns substantial damage to property, both public and private which occurred during a coincidental event - the pumping of water to reduce water levels in the vicinity.

We, the public have paid for a report - can't we just see it?

Its pretty obvious anyway this will end up in Court; lets get there sooner and stop wasting more money prevaricating. I think we elect Councillors to represent us and not to be Claims Assessors for Property Developers.

To withhold this, without any plausible reason is arrogant and rude.

Posted by: dannyboy Nov 3 2012, 10:05 PM

I'm not interested in the reasons - one park was negligibly 'damaged' & the other was totally trashed. Problem is, one has some political mileage attached.....

Posted by: Richard Garvie Nov 3 2012, 11:02 PM

The Lib Dems have called for the fair to be moved. I've said clearly that the fair should stay. Is that political??

Posted by: On the edge Nov 3 2012, 11:02 PM

I quite agree, the damage to Victoria park was negligible. Repairs, if even needed would not have cost more than the famous report. So, even if it had been published it is still a matter for the District Auditor surely? Are there still surcharges for reckless spending?

Posted by: Richard Garvie Nov 3 2012, 11:03 PM

But Richard Benyon is MP for Newbury, not West Berkshire. Englefield is represented by Alok Sharma as it is in the Reading West constituency.

Posted by: dannyboy Nov 3 2012, 11:27 PM

are you being dim on purpose? The alleged damage to Victoria park, because there was the slim chance of blaming the construction of the Parkway development, and by association the council that greenlighted the project, meant NDC wasted several grand on a pointless survey.

'Yeah, the ground dried & this lead to some cracks.' £5000 please.

Posted by: dannyboy Nov 3 2012, 11:29 PM

how can spending be reckless if it is done to please the elecrorate. just because the findings are not what you want to hear does not make it reckless.....

Posted by: dannyboy Nov 3 2012, 11:32 PM

requiring MPs to live in the constituency they represent??? rather 18th C.

Posted by: blackdog Nov 3 2012, 11:37 PM

Wikipedia has it wrong - not for the first time.

But so did I (also not for the first time) - it seems that Englefield is already in the Wokingham constituency, while I thought it would not be until the boundary changes take place.

So I apologise for that part of my post.

That said Richard Benyon has a connection with this area going back generations (albeit in a convoluted manner); he owns property in the constituency and has been active in local politics for a long time now. Is he any less local than a lad from Corby who happens to live within the constituency boundaries rather than a couple of hundred yards outside?

I could also ask why you put yourself forward for selection as a candidate in Reading if being local is so important.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Nov 4 2012, 04:48 AM

On the first point, Newbury, Wokingham and the Reading seats would not be effected by boundary changes. I know this as I went to the boundary commission briefing on behalf of my constituency pary!!

As for me putting myself forward for Reading, how do you know if I did or didn't? A Reading newspaper said I was to be a candidate, but I wasn't. Your post has more spin than a bedroom dj!!! ;-)

Posted by: Richard Garvie Nov 4 2012, 04:48 AM

I didn't say it should be a requirement.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Nov 4 2012, 04:52 AM

But West Berkd council approved Parkway and practically gave away public land. The current issue is that Newbury Town Council claim to know what caused the cracks and have done for a year. Although residents and businesses need that information in the area effected, NTC refuse to share it. Why?

Posted by: blackdog Nov 4 2012, 09:09 AM

Fair enough - but I know that Englefield is in Wokingham not Reading West because I checked on the Boundary Commission website rather than Wikipedia.


Again, fair enough - my information came from the Reading paper report - I don't remember your denying it at the time.


And your tweet didn't?

PS You didn't address the other bit of my post (the bit you didn't quote). How is Richard Garvie more 'local' than Richard Benyon?

Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 4 2012, 09:41 AM

He probably more readily represents the average person who lives in Newbury.

Posted by: user23 Nov 4 2012, 10:13 AM

I thought they already insinuated they can't share it at the moment due to possible legal proceedings?

Why do residents and businesses in the area affected need that information, by the way?

Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 4 2012, 10:24 AM

It might challenge the professionalism of our decision makers.

Posted by: user23 Nov 4 2012, 10:30 AM

I think there's a chance it's more likely to challenge the professionalism of the contractors, however I'm puzzled as to which specific residents and businesses in the area affected need that information.

To me it seems a certain someone is political point scoring in the name of residents and businesses without understanding the facts of the situation. Either that or he's just making mischief to promote himself again.

Posted by: On the edge Nov 4 2012, 11:46 AM

The commissioning of this report was done at the behest of the electorate, through its elected representatives. It is not simply an administrative matter. In the interests of transparency at least this should be published and that intent should have been made known when it was commissioned.

Appreciate some of us don't see that public management should be accountable to anyone but themselves. However, some of us believe in receiving what we've paid for. Wholly agree, this issue may well have been caused by bad design and management b y contractors and third parties, but there is also a question of approval and the processes leading to it.

Political point scoring - well, the ruling party on Newbury Town Council claim to be the party of open government. No opposing party worth its salt is going to miss a wide open goal!

Posted by: user23 Nov 4 2012, 11:49 AM

I thought they already insinuated they can't share it at the moment due to possible legal proceedings?

That's just my interpretation of what they said, so I could be wrong.

http://www.newbury.gov.uk/pdfs/news/updatevictoriapark301012.pdf

Posted by: dannyboy Nov 4 2012, 01:13 PM

No, but you are trying to score points on the issue.

Posted by: dannyboy Nov 4 2012, 01:16 PM

cos the report says that the cracks were caused by the dry weather.

'Public' land, LOL. What we have now is err, ( I can't believe I'm having to state this ) far better than what we had.

Posted by: Cognosco Nov 4 2012, 01:43 PM

We now don't own a fair proportion of Newbury - but we did before.! Although not derelict. due to the council not making any decisions so that business's were unable to make any decisions regarding the future, it is still half empty!

Posted by: Penelope Nov 4 2012, 03:07 PM

Wow! Didn't know Newbury had such a large population of weasels!

Posted by: Cognosco Nov 4 2012, 03:25 PM

Oh we do we definelty do! It's just that most of them keep in the background and just put a few of the - shall we say more expendables - forward to take the wrath of the electorate!

Just like in the First World War - over the top lads - I will be right behind you!

Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 4 2012, 03:44 PM

Is that official?


But is better than what we could have had?

Posted by: On the edge Nov 4 2012, 04:07 PM

The write up here suggests that legal process has already commenced. If that is the case, then all to the good. If that is the case - just keep us in the picture; it can't surely be secret that 'we' have started proceedings or indeed have been served with a claim. I can then see why a report would become protected. However, I'd still be rather miffed that this just seeped out as almost a throwaway remark in a press statement, nowhere near so annoyed, but miffed nonetheless. The Liberal campaign slogan used to be 'people count more than politics', presume that got lost when the SDP signed up!

Having said all that, have to agree that your interpretation could well be right.

Posted by: dannyboy Nov 4 2012, 04:19 PM

Impossible to say. We could have had anything.

Posted by: dannyboy Nov 4 2012, 04:20 PM

I'm a gambling man & that is my guess.

Posted by: dannyboy Nov 4 2012, 04:22 PM

fair proportion? half empty?

Posted by: Cognosco Nov 4 2012, 04:35 PM

May I suggest you try a different Forum so that perhaps you understand threads more concisely?

Perhaps CBBC has something that may be more suitable for you? Only trying to assist of course?

Posted by: blackdog Nov 4 2012, 05:18 PM

I would have thought that those whose property has been affected by subsidence during the period in question would be very keen to have the information, especially any foolish enough not to have buildings insurance.

Posted by: blackdog Nov 4 2012, 05:32 PM

But does that make him more local? The same could apply to millions of people from all over the country.

As it is Benyon was elected by the people of the Newbury constituency so he is the one doing the representing at present. If RG stands against him at the next opportunity we will see how much that situation changes.

Posted by: user23 Nov 4 2012, 07:04 PM

Have any properties been affected by subsidence? I don't remember hearing about any.

Posted by: blackdog Nov 4 2012, 07:22 PM

The Nursery for one - they spent their reserves on repairs rather than planned improvements - I'm sure they'd love to get some recompense if Costain are to blame. Other residents reported cracks in walls.

http://195.74.144.202/News/Article.aspx?articleID=19223

Posted by: Andy Capp Nov 4 2012, 07:51 PM

Was it Mr Benyon or the Tories they voted for?

Posted by: blackdog Nov 5 2012, 01:12 AM

Would it be Garvie or Labour?

I'm sure it is largely party but there are candidates who attract a large personal following (I am not convinced RB is one such).

In general elections we vote for which party we want to govern us, by-elections are far more local events, I doubt that Rendall would ever have won Newbury if it wasn't for Judith Chaplin's death creating a by-election. It would be interesting to see what would happen to parliament if MPs were elected two or three per week on a 5 year cycle instead of all at once. Hadn't thought of this before but I'm already thinking it would be a great way to connect the government to the electorate if their majority could disappear in a few months if they upset everyone.

Posted by: On the edge Nov 5 2012, 08:02 AM

I'm not sure about anyone else, but I generally decide at the time. I voted for Benyon because I actually liked him and his style. I'm not a Tory and there was no apparent alternative. I had previously voted for Rendal because he was the Liberal, and did that twice, then saw they were like in power, so never, ever again.

The idea of a staggered cycle for elections may seen superficially attractive. For the very reason you suggest, you'd end up with a permanent coalition, which would probably be even more ineffective than the one we have at present. Worse, the minority party would have more influence. All very Italian!

Posted by: blackdog Nov 5 2012, 07:17 PM

I'm not sure it would lead to more coalitions - though I guess it could through the result in the growth of representation of smaller parties as voters express their dissatisfaction with the leading parties. What I would hope is that it led to MPs more focussed on representing their electorate than toeing the party line. I would worry that the government might spend all its time focussing on popularity rather than sound decision making - but I would welcome a departure from the 5 year cycle ending with a year long spending spree as they try to buy our votes in the forthcoming election.

Not sure why you pick the stereotypically inefficient Italians as an exemplar of coalitions - why not the stereotypically efficient Germans?

Posted by: On the edge Nov 5 2012, 07:36 PM

True, suspect I was giving reign to personal prejudice. Agree, German model does demonstrate that they can work.

Posted by: Exhausted Nov 5 2012, 07:42 PM

ve hav ways of making it vork.