Parkgate Options

[Simon Kirby]

It's around about now that the town council have said they'll be giving the contractors another ultimatum to settle the dispute, and as it's run for about three and a half years and cost more that £50k without any obvious progress or likelihood of success I thought it would be good to review progress.

Mid August 2010 the council got five quotes for a hydrogeological survey and said it would be too expensive for them. By the end of August they'd changed their minds and appointed a surveyor to produce a report for an expected £4.5k and expected to be complete by the end of September 2010. By October the council had not published the report and were saying that they needed more time to analyse the data. By November the council were describing the report as a "private preliminary report" and said it would be going before the council before December and that it had to be further extended by another week because more information is needed.

By the end of November the council were blaming the contractor for delays in providing data they needed for their analysis, and the council commissioned an extension to the initial report for additional analysis costing an additional £3k. By the middle of December 2010 the council said they had received the last bit of information they needed and blamed the contractor's tardiness in providing the data for the delay in publishing the report.

By the middle of March 2011 the council were saying that they had a the hydrogeological report, but were still not prepared to publish it, saying "that many details still had to be worked out before anything was released." By the beginning of May the council are saying "I understand the impatience of Newbury Weekly News readers who want to know what's happening, but the future of Victoria Park is at stake, and as the guardians of the jewel in Newbury's crown we believe it's essential to do this right, rather than quickly ...".

By the end of November 2011 the council had still not published either the original report or the analysis extension, and hadn't given any plausible reason for refusing to do so, saying "The draft report has been discussed with the town council's legal advisers, including a barrister who has hydro-geological expertise, and as a result, the council has been firmly advised not to publish the draft report as it stands." The council said they needed to commission further reports into the extent of the damage and the cost of repair, though they didn't say what these would cost.

July 2012 the council gave the contractor an ultimatum either to settle the dispute or go to court. The contractor declined to settle, and the council bottled their threat and did nothing. By September 2012 the council begin to blame the contractors for the council's failure to publish the hydrogeological reports saying that the reports contain confidential information which the contractor would not allow them to disclose. November 2012 the council repeat this line saying the reports contain "commercially sensitive" information which they can't disclose.

By January 2013 the council have reportedly spent £24k and have still not published the reports. By April 2013 the council are saying that the reports may never be published: "It’s possible the public may never be able to see the report."

By the end of October 2013 the council are talking about the cost of repairing the bowls pitches is going to be £85k, though at the start of the dispute they'd had quotes for £20k, and it appears they were rolling in the additional cost of taking down some seriously overgrown conifers and the cost of that somehow appears to have been conflated with the cracks snafu.

The council didn't volunteer the figure, but the NWN had them confirm that the legal costs of the dispute have so far reached more than £50k, and they're likely to be quite a bit higher than that.

It seems unlikely to me that there'll be a settlement, and less likely still that any settlement will be made public, so if this thing ever ends we'll never know if the council handled it well or simply wasted public money on a wild goose chase, though I'm confident that council will tell us they did splendidly.

There's a Freedom of Information request in at the moment for the various reports and it would appear that the council really are required to disclose them, but the council don't seem to want to publish willingly so that process will probably take another two years if the council fight it all the way, so it's far from over yet.

[gel]

Keep them under scrutiny; it's our money they are managing, as they seem to forget.

Seem to recall similar whitewash/ lack of transparency over the library construction, years back.

[Cognosco]

Keep them under scrutiny; it's our money they are managing, as they seem to forget.

Seem to recall similar whitewash/ lack of transparency over the library construction, years back.

It would appear from this that the huge £1 profit they claimed we made from selling off the land to build Parkgate was not actually profit at all then?
Well at least we know they are consistent....... we get far less than promised and it costs us far more than originally proclaimed!

[NWNREADER]

It would appear from this that the huge £1 profit they claimed we made from selling off the land to build Parkgate was not actually profit at all then?
Well at least we know they are consistent....... we get far less than promised and it costs us far more than originally proclaimed!

The purchase price went to WBC, who are now likely to benefit from the Business Tax payments, and they have negotiated a marvellous facility for the town. We should be grateful and genuflect on passing any Office or Councillor

[Cognosco]

The purchase price went to WBC, who are now likely to benefit from the Business Tax payments, and they have negotiated a marvellous facility for the town. We should be grateful and genuflect on passing any Office or Councillor

You mean to tell me NTC could not even make £1 without losing it?

Marvelous facility? Can I borrow those rose tinted spectacles from you sometime?

Genuflect to a passing a Councillor? They are as rare as hens teeth at the moment they do everything they can to avoid coming into contact with any precept payer they happen to have the misfortune to come anywhere near? You have more chance of seeing Elvis walking down Northbrook Street!

[Andy Capp]

You mean to tell me NTC could not even make £1 without losing it?

Marvelous facility? Can I borrow those rose tinted spectacles from you sometime?

Genuflect to a passing a Councillor? They are as rare as hens teeth at the moment they do everything they can to avoid coming into contact with any precept payer they happen to have the misfortune to come anywhere near? You have more chance of seeing Elvis walking down Northbrook Street!

I think NWNREADER was being ironic!

[Cognosco]

I think NWNREADER was being ironic!

I did guess but being between projects at the moment and it being quiet on the forum I felt I needed to post something!

[NWNREADER]

I think NWNREADER was being ironic!

Who, me?

[Cognosco]

Any suggestions as to what the £50k we have obviously lost could have been spent on instead?

No new town flags or gold necklaces though please?
Yes I know it is only £50k as you council stalwarts will say but it could have been put to better use than lining legal eagles pockets though!

[Andy Capp]

Any suggestions as to what the £50k we have obviously lost could have been spent on instead?

No new town flags or gold necklaces though please?
Yes I know it is only £50k as you council stalwarts will say but it could have been put to better use than lining legal eagles pockets though!

When it comes to legal profession, I think vultures is a more suitable word to use.

[Simon Kirby]

Any suggestions as to what the £50k we have obviously lost could have been spent on instead?

No new town flags or gold necklaces though please?
Yes I know it is only £50k as you council stalwarts will say but it could have been put to better use than lining legal eagles pockets though!

Amongst the many things that come to mind, it could have paid to improve the bowling greens.

[NWNREADER]

Amongst the many things that come to mind, it could have paid to improve the bowling greens.

Surely, if the outcome is in favour then there will be no cost to NTC for the repairs?

[Simon Kirby]

Surely, if the outcome is in favour then there will be no cost to NTC for the repairs?

Any settlement is going to be broadly proportionate to the strength of evidence supporting the claim. If the council's evidence only proves that the dewatering contributed in part to some of the alleged damage then the best they might hope for is an offer to pay for some of the damage and a contribution to their costs, and if their costs are large in proportion to the cost of repairing the damage then they might not even cover their costs and would have been better off dropping the matter three years ago and just paying for the repairs.

If the other side doesn't make a particularly generous offer then the council might decide to litigate, but that's a bit of a lottery, and if they don't beat any pre-litigation offer then they likely can't recover any costs at all.

[Cognosco]

Any settlement is going to be broadly proportionate to the strength of evidence supporting the claim. If the council's evidence only proves that the dewatering contributed in part to some of the alleged damage then the best they might hope for is an offer to pay for some of the damage and a contribution to their costs, and if their costs are large in proportion to the cost of repairing the damage then they might not even cover their costs and would have been better off dropping the matter three years ago and just paying for the repairs.

If the other side doesn't make a particularly generous offer then the council might decide to litigate, but that's a bit of a lottery, and if they don't beat any pre-litigation offer then they likely can't recover any costs at all.

Yes well as one Councillor said to another it was worth a punt to try and put the blame on to the construction company but hey ho we lost and it was only the precept payers money that was lost it's not as if we had to put our hands in our pockets was it?

[On the edge]

Surely, if the outcome is in favour then there will be no cost to NTC for the repairs?

Yeahhhh!

What sticks in my claw is that 'Local Government' would call anyone else who did this a rouge. It's exactly the same ax the bogus legacy scam that often goes the rounds. You get an email from an amateur researcher who says they've noticed a long lost relative has probably left you a big legacy. For a small percentage, they'll arrange to get it for you! What have you got to loose? No money up front and their rake off is minimal.....that us until you get the request for fees, etc. yeah, you get a legacy in the end, but by then you notice the fees and disbursements you've been sucked into paying (all legit. Of course!) becomes rather more than the legacy!!!

Yes, NTC will doubtless have a victory and it can also be qualified with a big word not vexatious this time but pyrrhic....

[Cognosco]

Yeahhhh!

What sticks in my claw is that 'Local Government' would call anyone else who did this a rouge. It's exactly the same ax the bogus legacy scam that often goes the rounds. You get an email from an amateur researcher who says they've noticed a long lost relative has probably left you a big legacy. For a small percentage, they'll arrange to get it for you! What have you got to loose? No money up front and their rake off is minimal.....that us until you get the request for fees, etc. yeah, you get a legacy in the end, but by then you notice the fees and disbursements you've been sucked into paying (all legit. Of course!) becomes rather more than the legacy!!!

Yes, NTC will doubtless have a victory and it can also be qualified with a big word not vexatious this time but pyrrhic....

You reckon we will get our whole £1 profit back.....or will WBC snatch that as well?
Or will the £1 cost us another £50K ?

[Simon Kirby]

Yes, NTC will doubtless have a victory and it can also be qualified with a big word not vexatious this time but pyrrhic....

I think what's happened here is that the council have responded to reports of damage that have ignored the unseasonably hot and dry summer and have pointed the finger at the dewatering because it was an obvious feature in the neighbourhood, and having declared the dewatering to be responsible they find themselves unable to acknowledge that they may have been a bit hasty.

Transparent and open government is supposed to prevent this kind of thing happening by opening up local government to public scrutiny and criticism, and this is why it is necessary for the council to publish the reports. I suspect too that however this ends that the council will spin it as a success and suppress any hard evidence that would allow the public to form their own opinion.

I find the way in which the reports have been suppressed to be particularly troubling. They talk now about a confidentiality agreement preventing them publishing the reports, but it took two years for that reason to emerge, and I can't help wonder whether it is genuine. The council needs to publish what it has and let the public scrutinise its management of this costly dispute.

[On the edge]

I couldn't agree more. The Freedom of Information legislation was indeed aimed at trying to prevent this sort of thing happening. Anyone who has any regard for good and open government should be very concerned about the continued withholding of these documents. The longer it goes on, the more suspicion will grow. It's doubly sad, because the ruling political party, the LibDems fought so hard, as did their predecessor Liberal Party, for open government, yet they seem to be the first to block it in practice!

[Andy Capp]

Surely the apparent crook in this case is the Parkway people? Why are they protecting the document? If the law is involved, both side are behaving exactly as they would be advised, which is only understandable. Should the council submit information to the public that compromised any future payment, they would be crucified.

[On the edge]

Natural justice would say what have they got to hide. If the report comes out against them the Council would surely just want to collect or sue - in which case disclosure is automatic. If it comes out for them, then why would they want to keep that quiet. Either way, there seems no rationale for suppressing publication.

There was some talk that they produced extraction volumes, information given in confidence. Again why in confidence? May be there is an involvement by Insurers, who (as they would) are dragging their heels. But this has gone on so long, delaying publication is not really in anyones interests. Continued argument costs money.

They are all as bad as one another; the only people who suffer are the mugs who paid for the report.....us!