Decision Time on Parkgate, "I am not a crack" Options

[Simon Kirby]

NTC set a deadline for the end of August for Costain either to accept or deny liability for what the council claim was crack damage caused by Costain's dewatering of the Parkway underground carpark construction site. If Costain accept liability for any damage then they'll be obliged to pay to repair it, and if the deadline passes and they haven't accepted liability then NTC have said that they will sue the company for the cost of repairing the damage without any further delay. NTC have so far spent in the region of £20k in professional fees, but have conspicuously failed to publish the hydrogeological report that they commissioned, citing various excuses along the way, and most recently blaming Costain for refusing to sanction its publication. It'll be good to see some closure on this now, and to get the report into the public domain.

[Andy Capp]

It looks like NTC have said: right, really, definitely this time, really, it's the middle of September, or we really will see you in court, really!

[Cognosco]

It looks like NTC have said: right, really, definitely this time, really, it's the middle of September, or we really will see you in court, really!

Or just roll over for a developer as usual?

[Newbelly]

I too would like to see this issue resolved and to know the truth. But we do not know what the expert evidence says, or which party really wishes it to remain unread by the public. £20k is not a great deal to spend on expert advice in such circumstances.

[Simon Kirby]

Photo on the web site today:


I see a section of the retaining wall cracked and bulged, but I also see that the section of wall to the left of the crack is new, and the cracking extends into this new section of brickwork.

Does anyone know when this brickwork was replaced and why? It's just the cracking extending into the new brickwork tells me that the new bit was built before the crack developed in 2010, and it's possible that it was a rebuild after some similar cracking to what we see now which happen before the 2010 abstraction. If that's right then it's very likely that this new cracking is the result of the same ground movement and nothing to do with abstraction. If the damage and repair was all done after the abstraction then the ground has continued to subside and that also doesn't make sense if the subsidence was caused by the abstraction.

For my money the cracking here is all to do with tree roots. Recommended safe planting distance for a sycamore is 12 metres (see here) and the sycamores you can see in the photo are within a meter of the wall. More damaging still are the roots of trees that have been felled and have now rotted and collapsed - that tends to happen about 10 to 20 years after the tree is felled. There have been planty of trees felled in the park, and that sink hole between the two trees in the photo is suspiciously like the hollow a tree would leave behind, or else just the collapse of some peat - there's a reason the area was previously known as "the marsh".

[JeffG]

Before I finished reading your post, I was also going to say it was most likely due to tree roots. The ground between the trunk and the wall is already raised and devoid of grass.

[Simon Kirby]

Before I finished reading your post, I was also going to say it was most likely due to tree roots. The ground between the trunk and the wall is already raised and devoid of grass.

Of course it's possible that NTC aren't claiming that the dewatering caused this bit of damage and that NewburyToday just used a pciture of some cracking in the park, but other than this retaining wall I don't think there's much else in the park that can have been damaged to any great degree - the football pitches just needed a couple of bags of topsoil brushing in. At one time NTC were asking for £100k, but I can't see how the bill would be that big even if they rebuilt the whole of that retaining wall, and if the argument is as complicated as they say then they seem likely to run up a bill on legal costs of way more than the £25k they've already spent without any certainty of recouping anything, but with a reasonable prospect of paying Costain's legal costs should they lose their claim.

It just seems to me that unless the hydrogeological report came out saying that the dewatering was absolutely definitely the cause of the damage then litigation was always going to be a pointless gamble, and it was pretty clear right from the start that the hydrogeological report didn't give them the answer that they were depending on because they choked on publishing the report two years ago and it's only in the last couple of months that they've invented this implausible story about Costain refusing permission to publish proprietary information.

Come on Newbury Weekly - we need to see the report - use the Environmental Information Regulations to force NTC to publish. They've spent £25k of public money persuing a claim for damage worth arounf £10k, much of which seems likely to have been caused by tree roots and the settlement of marsh peat. It's far from clear how this has been in the public interest.

[Adrian Hollister]

When ever you get a development of this size and disruption you must expect anomalies like this. Sounds darn obvious to me that if you find what appears a low lying large under ground water source and drain it there will be an impact to the surrounding area. I can't be of any shock to the council that things like this can go wrong. There can't be any shock either to the developer who took the risk building and making good profit from it - as they own the risk they have a moral (and perhaps legal) obligation 'fix' the problem. They should just get on with it: fixing cracks in houses, repairs of parks, walls etc shouldn't be too difficult for a large construction company.

[Newbelly]

They should just get on with it: fixing cracks in houses, repairs of parks, walls etc shouldn't be too difficult for a large construction company.

But if they were to do that, it may be seen as an admission of liability in respect of other losses to third parties not yet apparent.

[dannyboy]

It's far from clear how this has been in the public interest.

Beacuse at the time ( remember, a hot dry summer, etc etc ) folk were screaming blue murder that the evils that were Costain & the PW development had killed off Victoria Park. Instead of saying 'Look this is a dry summer - like what Costain are saying ' NTC listened to the people of Newbury & decided to get an independent report done.

Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

[Simon Kirby]

It's far from clear how this has been in the public interest.

Beacuse at the time ( remember, a hot dry summer, etc etc ) folk were screaming blue murder that the evils that were Costain & the PW development had killed off Victoria Park. Instead of saying 'Look this is a dry summer - like what Costain are saying ' NTC listened to the people of Newbury & decided to get an independent report done.

Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

Not at all. Getting the original hydrogeological report (at a cost of £4k wasn't it) was entirely correct and prudent as there was on the face of it a reasonable possibility that Costain's dewatering was responsible for some damage in the park.

However, having received the report the Council choked and refused to publish, making one spurious excuse after another for not doing so. The bill has now crept up to £25k and still no evidence from the Council to support the public interest in persuing their claim, and this is what needs some clarification.

[dannyboy]

Not at all. Getting the original hydrogeological report (at a cost of £4k wasn't it) was entirely correct and prudent as there was on the face of it a reasonable possibility that Costain's dewatering was responsible for some damage in the park.

However, having received the report the Council choked and refused to publish, making one spurious excuse after another for not doing so. The bill has now crept up to £25k and still no evidence from the Council to support the public interest in persuing their claim, and this is what needs some clarification.

All in due course. Patience is a virtue......

[Adrian Hollister]

Not at all. Getting the original hydrogeological report (at a cost of £4k wasn't it) was entirely correct and prudent as there was on the face of it a reasonable possibility that Costain's dewatering was responsible for some damage in the park.

However, having received the report the Council choked and refused to publish, making one spurious excuse after another for not doing so. The bill has now crept up to £25k and still no evidence from the Council to support the public interest in persuing their claim, and this is what needs some clarification.

I don't like the council's obsession with hiding information, but in this case I don't think I would want to show my hand unless I had all the facts. I've no doubt that costain are very used to this situation and will be well prepared, we (represented by the council) also need to be well prepared.

Given the large area of what appears to be subsidence, I wonder if all the insurance companies involved should help fund the council's investigation?

[Newbelly]

Not at all. Getting the original hydrogeological report (at a cost of £4k wasn't it) was entirely correct and prudent

If the expert report only cost £4k, then it does not sound very comprehensive and this may be a reason for it not being used, served or disclosed.

[dannyboy]

It was some local with a pendulum & divining rod......

[Simon Kirby]

If the expert report only cost £4k, then it does not sound very comprehensive and this may be a reason for it not being used, served or disclosed.

There was an additional cost for further investigations, but I have a feeling the report finally cost like £8k - again, it would be helpful if the Newbury Weekly could dig all of this information out. I think it's been legal costs that have brought the costs to £25k, but again, I'm not certain.

Under the Environmental Information Regulations the council can withold the report if it is a draft, but I don't believe that has been the case. The original report may not have been detailed enough, but it was a final report, and it should be made public, as should the subsequent additional reports. This nonsense about Costain refusing NTC permission to publish the report only cropped up a month or so ago, and again it would be good if the Newbury Weekly would press them on this apparent inconsistency.

Come on NWN, how about getting those report from NTC?

[Andy Capp]

It was some local with a pendulum & divining rod......

I heard it was blotting paper.

[Simon Kirby]

So anywho, where are we with this now? Has Costains coughed up the cash, or has NTC started their threatened legal proceedings?

[Andy Capp]

So anywho, where are we with this now? Has Costains coughed up the cash, or has NTC started their threatened legal proceedings?

Nah, they got a radio station to build! Cracks is boring!

[Cognosco]

Nah, they got a radio station to build! Cracks is boring!

I think you may find that Costain's has declared the NTC as vexatious and are therefore going to ignore them from now on?