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.

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.

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.

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?

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........

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.....

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

do you know something we don't?

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.

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

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 like this to critique their handling of the request.

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!

Well put.

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

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

So funny.

You're not even happy when they do.

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.

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?

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

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