Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Simon Kirby Apr 16 2015, 04:55 PM

https://www.facebook.com/ApoliticalPolitics/posts/792680317467203?notif_t=like

The Information Tribunal has ruled that the public have a right to see the hydrogeological reports and NTC have been given until the 2nd of May to publish them.

After all the public talk about not being able to publish because of a "confidentiality agreement" the Council didn't even argue that point with the Information Tribunal and instead assert litigation privilege in the reports. However, the Tribunal agreed with the appeal and found that the reports were not legally privileged, but went further and said that even if they had been the public interests would still have been string enough to override any objection to publication.

It should never have taken this much effort to see the reports - and the Council might yet ask leave to appeal the judgment which will delay publication until after the election - but point is the Council should have been open about the reports from the off, and then there would have been much less cynicism about the sense of pursuing the claim. As it is it'll be interesting to see if the reports do indeed support a four and a half year dispute.

 cracks_judgment.pdf ( 440.57K ) : 39

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 16 2015, 07:35 PM

Update: I see that the tribunal seem to believe in the existence of a CA, so I will have to accept that for the time being.

OK, I had better not quote the document, but it pretty much shreds the council's case against publication. In my view it implies legal 'confusion' or perhaps council mismanagement, even 'chicanery'. All opinion of course as I find the text hard going.

At the end of it all, you really have to question the council's strategy. The evidence is that the council have sought legal advice to prevent publication rather then whether to publish.

Posted by: Turin Machine Apr 16 2015, 11:01 PM

Oooh, Petra's gonna be so mad when she gets back after the school hols!

Posted by: On the edge Apr 17 2015, 06:03 AM

Now map this against all the public pronouncements. There is something very clearly wrong with NTC. And still both the incumbent parties claim we have no money to do anything in our district. Yet again, our local policy of secrecy and 'we know best' falls flat on its face. Just incredible!

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 17 2015, 08:18 AM

From the evidence above, we have a 'rotten parish'.

Posted by: Berkshirelad Apr 17 2015, 08:14 PM

i've been doorstepped by a candidate for election to NTC.

Didn't seem too impressed when I said that it should be abolished....

Posted by: NWNREADER Apr 17 2015, 08:23 PM

I hope the candidate wasn't Simon Kirby!!

Posted by: Simon Kirby Apr 17 2015, 08:34 PM

I think it would be a very good thing to abolish it. WBC could run the parks and cemetery and a few other useful bits and bobs much better than NTC, the allotments could be allowed to self-managed like many larger councils do, and the rest could just not be done at all. The only losers would be the local party politicos who like the idea of being civic dignitaries.

A good parish council is small and approachable, well connected with the community which it supports and empowers. NTC is inept and arrogant, and it's difficult getting it back on-track when it's so thoroughly rotten.

Posted by: On the edge Apr 17 2015, 09:36 PM

I couldn't agree more and to think I was one of those who thought the Charter Trustee arrangement was opaque, not fair or democratic governance. How wrong can you be!
It's failed and I can't see how the current arrangements would produce any difference. I'd also agree that this is primarily down to party politics.

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 17 2015, 09:46 PM

In this instance, it seems a matter of poor governance as much anything else. There are some quite embarrassing statements in the judgement. It really does look like the council were desperate to conceal something. I suppose the council felt quite confident on the back of the court case where Simon's complaint was thrown-out on a technicality, so they might not have seen this coming.

On the face of it, they seem to have received poor advice, or, they are guilty of poor decision making.


Subject to an appeal of course.


It is a big shame that the Newbury Weekly News don't seem to find the story of any interest. Someone had their purse nicked in broad daylight, apparently.

Posted by: Cognosco Apr 18 2015, 09:42 AM

When the history of all this is reviewed the question must be asked just what has been gained or lost through this farce?

Just some of the lost:

The precept payer has lost, nothing unusual there, a fair wedge of cash.
Precept payers have lost all thoughts that they have an open and transparent Council who are elected to serve them.
Any slight credibility or belief that NTC serves any useful purpose now has been lost. Apart from the purpose of allowing a few members of the "Club" the reason to be able to dress up and feel that they are more important than the rest of the precept payers.
Precept payers have lost what would appear to be a decent and open Councillor, Ruwan, who has resigned because of the deceitful way our Council has been managed.
A Precept payer has been vilified and made to endure years of abuse and made to lose a, to him, priceless allotment plot and all for just trying to hold a deceitful and mismanaged Council to account and bring their mismanagement to public awareness.

Just some of the gains:

It has opened the public eyes to the fact that it is possible for local politics to be just as corrupt as the national.
There is no purpose whatever in the small Town Council, and it is possible to cut out the cost in this economic climate.
It proves openness and transparency does not exist at present in our Town Council and the same as at national level they will try and cover up with a vengeance when in the wrong.
It makes it important to question just why it appears there has been very little real investigative journalism carried out by our, supposed, free local presses over the last few years?

Posted by: gel Apr 18 2015, 03:56 PM

Transparency

Perhaps the Gov't Minister that has criticised this Sussex Council (re transparency), should
cast his eye over Newbury Toy Council?
http://www.bexhillobserver.net/news/local/rother-transparency-row-council-accused-of-withholding-information-1-6657960

Wasn't LibDem HO investigating too?

Posted by: On the edge Apr 18 2015, 04:41 PM

Yes, it is quite an eye opener; this little Council with no real responsibility has squittered away £100k when it's much bigger and rather more critical brother WBC can't even afford to do its statutory duties properly.

This isn't the first incident as you rightly point out. We should also add in the debacle of the 'cafe in the park' - a design that needed costly rework because whoever briefed the architect left out key environmental facts - like the site is in a flood plain. Then, the design left out basic, easily understood EA requirements. What happens? The Council choose to blame the EA!! Competence; wot us?

And whilst all this is going on, the Conservative opposition have been loud and vocal in their protest haven't they? Hello, hello anyone at home....

Why?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Apr 18 2015, 05:24 PM

I couldn't agree more OtE. The Lib Dem administration is rotten, but the Tories are just as responsible and neither challenged the secrecy and ineptitude.

Posted by: Petra Apr 20 2015, 06:15 PM

Dear all,

I disagree with The Information Tribunal ruling that the public has a right to see the hydrogeological reports. Such reports could be used as litigation. Then there is the insurance angle as well. I see the trouble here is that those that will read the report don’t have the intelligence to comprehend what they would have before them. I don’t know if anybody noticed the letter in the NWN where a Councillor said the public wouldn’t understand the report. He is right, they woundn’t. This report could create a world wind of stupidity and misunderstanding. Hopefully the council will use its top lawyers to fight to keep this away from the community.

We give people all sorts of rights and all this does is to create havoc and instability. That is why we have PMs and Councillors to work on behalf of those that can’t grasp the finer points of such complex reports. If they disagree then they will act appropriately on your behalf. We don’t allow monkey’s dictating to the Zoo keeper so therefore should we allow the ignorant to do the job that professionals have been trained to do?

Allow the professionals, whom you elected, to comprehend what is beyond you.

Yours,
Petra

Posted by: Turin Machine Apr 20 2015, 06:30 PM

Enjoy the school holidays love?

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 20 2015, 06:56 PM

It is clear you haven't read and understood the ruling yourself as you will see you are wrong on a number of accounts.

It was professionals that ruled against the council's argument, and if you read the ruling you will see inconsistencies with the council's position. The Information Tribunal decided unanimously that the council didn't have any reason to deny the information and the potential litigation argument was declared invalid.

I doubt there is not one councillor that has a better grasp of the hydrogeological report than any member of the parish, after all, councillors are 'normal people' like the rest of us. Just because a handful of people voted for them doesn't make them any more qualified to interpret the results than anyone else.

Posted by: Cognosco Apr 20 2015, 07:17 PM

Petra

"That is why we have PMs and Councillors to work on behalf of those that can’t grasp the finer points of such complex reports"

Well you have just shot yourself in the foot again then eh?

It is clear from your statement that you don't understand that Councillors are only amateurs.
Especially the mob we have at the moment who are unable to comprehend even the simplest contracts etc.
Still perhaps they will be contacting you shortly to seek your professional advice on how to avoid having to publish the report that will prove both local authorities may have been totally negligent, yet again, and cost precept payers a fair wedge of money eh?

Perhaps you would be so kind as to inform us ignorant plebs who to vote for in the upcoming elections as it is probably beyond our comprehension to get it right whilst you are available?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Apr 20 2015, 07:35 PM

I understand from Charlie Farrow that at the Town Meeting a few weeks ago Cllr Tony Stretton said that it was only he and JSH who had actually seen the hydrogeological reports.

It's one of the many questionable features of CrackGate that the Councillors didn't insist on being able to study the reports and convince themselves that the Council's course of action was appropriate. The Council would appear to be as secretive with its elected councillors as it is with us tax-paying schlobs.

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 20 2015, 07:38 PM

Here's the rub: "...it is very hard to understand how a report dependent on the provision of data by a prospective defendant subject to a confidentiality agreement precluding publication of those data could have been intended for use in litigation at all, let alone litigation against the beneficiary of the agreement."

Posted by: Simon Kirby Apr 20 2015, 08:14 PM

Indeedy. The agreement - in the view of the Tribunal - would appear to work like a "without prejudice" caveat, and it makes the reports inadmissible as evidence.

The reports are the only evidence that could prove the cause of the alleged subsidence, and without proof the Council have nothing to enforce their claim. It was still worth commissioning the reports of course because, as the Tribunal found, knowing the cause of the alleged cracking was a matter of operational concern for the Council and public quite apart from any potential use of the reports in litigation, but having received the reports there was very little point spending another £100k on legal and professional fees in preparation for litigation that could never be started with any sensible hope of success.

I don't think there's much the Council can say to convince me that they still have a winnable case - the Tribunal in effect says that the reports are useless as evidence, and if it's a toss-up between believing the Tribunal or the Council you'll understand if I side with the Tribunal.

I think the Council need to review their conduct of this dispute, and as they're incapable of looking critically at themselves I suggest that they need to commission an independent review - and CrackGate is not the only unresolved problem...

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 20 2015, 08:51 PM

So the only practical reason why the council would want to conceal the evidence is that it would expose a weak case against their pursuit of legal redress (i.e. running up a big legal bill). As the ruling pointed out, if this went to court, both sides would be required to hand over all evidence they intend to use in court, to the other side.

The other possibility is that the council may have inadmissible evidence in support of their position, but as a sign of goodwill, chose to keep the findings secret in the hope Costain would provide some 'goodwill money'.

It is bewildering to know what the council (or individuals in the council) are playing at.

Posted by: On the edge Apr 20 2015, 09:17 PM

Sir, you've actually made a superb case for the abolition of Newbury TownCouncil! Well done!

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 20 2015, 10:50 PM

That is an irrelevance. Any data that is used is available to both sides.


What about insurance?


Then the council have nothing to fear; however, your assumption is wrong; the people who create the report are members of the public too.


Why should the council be concerned with legal challenges where they are not the defendants? Unless the report showed criminal negligence on behalf of the council, but if that was the case that would be a compelling reason to publish.


If anyone were to launch a legal challenge, they would almost certainly seek professional advice.


Evidently that is advice Newbury Town Council would have done well to heed.

Posted by: On the edge Apr 21 2015, 06:26 AM

I agree with you Andy C!

.....................but you've turned me into Petra ...aaaagh...is there a cure?

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 21 2015, 11:14 AM

The thing is, mankind has got where he is today because received wisdom is constantly challenged. People should have nothing to fear about the truth. Councillors are mangers and stake holders; they are not owners of anything. From what we know at the moment, the council have not tabled a legitimate reason for not publishing the first two reports.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Apr 21 2015, 01:18 PM

Initially the Council indicated that they would be publishing the reports, but just weren't at the time because the thing was a work in progress. Not a legitimate reason to decline, but understandable perhaps.

Some time late 2013 (I think) they referred to a "confidentiality agreement" as the reason for being unable to publish. I am still suspicious about that. The "confidentiality agreement" is inconsistent with the Council's initial talk about publishing the reports, and it is incredulous that they should have weathered years of speculation and criticism about the non-publication of the reports without ever mention a "confidentiality agreement" until three years later.

It is particularly suspicious that they refused for no good reason to disclose the CA and then when ordered by the IC to publish it they redacted the date of the agreement. That suggests to me that there was something about the date that was embarrassing, and the only thing that I can think of is that the agreement was made later than the Council have admitted.

It's also notable that despite what Cllr Allen says about the CA being the reason the Council wouldn't publish, the Council didn't even advance that excuse at the Tribunal. The Council's substantive argument for not puslishing was their assertion of legal professional privelege. This exposes the Council's public position as dishonest, because it was entirely the Council's choice to claim privilege - a claim the Tribunal demolished as neither well-founded nor in the public interest.

The Council do indeed need to explain all that, and if the reports are inadmissable as evidence they also need to explain how they spent £100k pursuing an unwinnable claim - and their unwarrented hostility to public scrutiny has certainly hampered any public engagemt which may well have prevented this situation.

Posted by: Cognosco Apr 21 2015, 03:18 PM

That tribunal had better watch out the Council may declare them vexatious too?

I am still wondering what else has to come to the public's attention yet especially concerning RUP?

I just hope that the electors have been making notes of all these goings on ready for the election decisions!

Posted by: x2lls Apr 21 2015, 03:24 PM

Oh dear, Petra is an anagram of EPrat!!

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 21 2015, 03:29 PM

I'm not sure if I have misunderstood the judgement, but it seems to say that any CA was not obtained through legal means. When the request to see the CA was it submitted, was it supplied? All I have seen is an email that referenced an agreement.




As have said before, I simply don't understand why the council have done what they have appeared to have done. They could have said the evidence is weak for the de-watering to be the problem and that would have been that. I do remember at the time they said one of the early investigations required more information that was needed from the developer. Perhaps the developer's information is damning, but the council are embarrassed about their strategy of obtaining inadmissible evidence. Perhaps that was a mistake by an individual they wish to conceal?

Posted by: Exhausted Apr 21 2015, 04:05 PM

Well Petra, thank you for your very patronising effort to convince us that the councillors are professional and have the ability to comprehend subjects that we the people have not. When the election comes round, we should perhaps ask for their professional qualifications before we vote for them. I'm not sure I like to be called a monkey, as I do have a grasp of technical subjects and I'm sure that I will not create a world wind (whirlwind actually) of stupidity and misunderstanding.

Using their top lawyers has been the whole problem with a council out of control. Perhaps you need to be reminded that what is in reality a small parish council, has already frittered away £100k of our money on legal advice

When you are talking about professionals, I wonder what basis you are using to advise us that you are more professional than a learned tribunal and are in a position to refute their decision which for sure they would have examined in detail.

Noted that you are also advising us that there is an insurance angle. Such a shame that the "professional" Town councillors didn't realise this and take some action in this direction.

There is a problem with our professional town council which is now very apparent. An out of control chief executive and finally, a very professional person who joined the council, could not continue to serve because of the inherent problems.

Carry on posting your nonsense by all means but you do need to think things through with a little more care so that you do not become ridiculed.

Posted by: Cognosco Apr 21 2015, 05:05 PM

Good advice but a bit too late me thinks?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Apr 21 2015, 05:59 PM

That e-mail was it. Can you quote the bit of the judgment where you say it says the CA wasn't obtained through legal means - that's not how I'm reading it.

There are several exceptions to the duty to disclose under the Environmental Information Regulations and one of those exceptions is for information provided in confidence: "a public authority may refuse to disclose information to the extent that its disclosure would adversely affect ... the confidentiality of commercial or industrial information where such confidentiality is provided by law to protect a legitimate economic interest;"

The Council didn't rely on that exception before the Tribunal. It would appear that they tried to make that argument late in the day in a private submission to the Tribunal but the Tribunal rejected it because they would have had to have asked for permission to introduce a new argument so late into the proceedings and they didn't have the courtesy to do that, and because the made the argument in a secret submission to the Tribunal when there was nothing sensitive to protect which simply denied the appellant the opportunity to challenge it.

The Tribunal didn't need to consider the Council's submission, but it did anyway and found that the CA wasn't protecting any economic interest of Costains - I'm curious to know quite why Costain would want the data it supplied to the Council kept secret - it's entirely possible that they couldn't actually give a stuff and that NTC had written to them asking for them to impose just such a condition - they could blame Costain for not publishing the reports but it was NTC's choice all along. That last bit is manifestly true because NTC asserted (non-existent) litigation privilege in the reports in order to try and keep they secret, but who initiated the CA is anyone's guess. NTC should have a record of that discussion, but can you be bothered to wait another 16 months to see it?


Yes, that's one of the possibilities that occurs to me.

Posted by: Petra Apr 21 2015, 07:36 PM

Dear Mr Capp,

1. Actually, I have read it.
2. Yes, you are right, professionals have ruled against the council’s argument. But they are not the same professionals that only have the councils interest and reputation at heart. As for the Tribunal’s unanimous decision, that may be their decision, but it is not the councils. I personally believe that the council has the superior hand here and the tribunal is only playing politics. Don’t forget that they can be challenged and it is not the end of this matter.
3. Yes, councillors are normal people, however, they’ve been elected to represent those that put them there. Usually the electorate votes in those that can grasp and more in tune than those voting them in.

I noticed that you quoted my words again and attributed them to Ms Edge, therefore I will allow your chosen representative to answer what I said to you.

Yours,
Petra

Posted by: Petra Apr 21 2015, 07:37 PM

Mr Coqnosco,

The first part of your diatribe (about shooting myself in the foot) I answered when replying to Mr Capp. As for your last paragraph. Your comments about yourself and your ilk being, and I quote, “ignorant plebs” answers your own question. Therefore, I believe it was rhetorical.

Yours,
Petra

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 21 2015, 07:50 PM

That wasn't clear from you first comment.


Which is what justice and natural law is all about: unbiased judgement and thank the Lord for that.


If the council wish to continue with their ridiculous argument, then that makes them even more stupid than they appear to have been so far. The best thing the council could do is just publish the documents. The council's performance on this right from start has been very poor and inconsistent. The judgement bears that out quite clearly.


People vote for many reasons, but to assume that the average councillor has a better grasp of law and science engineering than any particular constituent is a laughable notion.

Your arguments remain incoherent.


That was just an editing error and unintentional.


The simple question remains: why are the council so determined to keep the reports and data secret.

Posted by: Exhausted Apr 21 2015, 08:51 PM

Who are these professionals that have the council's interest and reputation at heart. If by this you mean the councillors themselves then of course they now have to attempt to protect their tarnished reputation. The tribunal is not political and will have produced a judgement based on the facts, not one that is biased towards a political end or that of saving ones bacon.

Once again, your view that a councillor understands things which are beyond the comprehension of everybody else is just ridiculous and undermines just about everything which you write. Entertaining twaddle but that's about the mark of it.

I just hope that we can get a new and more engaging group elected with proper leadership when it comes time to mark our crosses on the paper.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Apr 21 2015, 09:03 PM

Are you sure that all our councillors have opposable thumbs?

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 22 2015, 01:53 AM

Section 3 and 53 seems to imply it, but I suspect I'm misunderstanding to clauses.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Apr 22 2015, 06:52 AM

To resist the duty to disclose the Council would have needed to rely on one of the exceptions provided by the Environmental Information Regulations. The Council relied on the Regulation12(5)( exception which excepts disclosure of information that would adversely affect the course of justice, and the Tribunal dismissed that assertion because the reports are not subject to legal professional privilege as the Council claimed. There are other exceptions which the Council might have relied on, 12(5)(e) and 12(5)(f), both of which protect the interest of the party providing the original information (so Costain). The Council didn"t actually rely on either of those exceptions. The Tribunal recognises that the CA imposed a duty of confidentiality, but that confidentiality wasn't protecting any identified interest of Costain so the exceptions wouldn't have made any difference as far as the duty to disclose under the Environmental Information Regulations was concerned. Exceptions 12(5)(e) and 12(5)(f) aren't in any case available for information on emissions as we had argued the reports were, but the Tribunal didn't need to rule on the emmissions question because the Council didn't actually invoke those exceptions.

In short, the CA may or may not be effective generally, but it wasn't enought to defeat the right to the reports under these specific Regulations and the Council didn't in the end assert the CA.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Apr 22 2015, 02:04 PM

NTC publish the hydrogeologicalreports: http://www.newbury.gov.uk/foi-2000.php

Posted by: Strafin Apr 22 2015, 04:43 PM

Wow, great work Simon!

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 22 2015, 05:56 PM

I don't understand it.

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 22 2015, 05:56 PM

LOL - Have you read it yet Simon; what does it mean? I read lots of 'most likely' and 'lack of mitigation'. Perhaps WBC's EA feel a bit awkward for not ensuring safe dewatering?


The trouble is; what do we moan about now, now that you've ruined NTC's park recovery strategy? And now NTC are gonna get their ar$$e$ sued and pump everyone's council tax up!

Posted by: Cognosco Apr 22 2015, 06:02 PM

Don't worry Petra will be along shortly to inform us plebs what it means!

Posted by: Petra Apr 22 2015, 06:20 PM

Dear Mr Capp,

1. I am glad it is clear now.
2. You may say unbiased judgement, I question it. How do you know they don’t have their own agenda? After all, they are just ordinary people, albeit professional people, but with an agenda.
3. I understand how it is ridiculous coming from you and those that are hostile to councils, but to others they would disagree.
4. My arguments are incoherent to you, which I understand, however, to those around me and to a more intelligent mind it is very coherent. Didn’t you put up on this forum that you wished to get back to criticizing WBC? That answers your question in a nutshell.
5. I thought this was pretty obvious. By releasing it and being read wrongly, it could affect how the public see them and also open themselves up to every crank out there. Then there is the litigation angle. Maybe I shouldn’t say this, but whatever business I worked for, it was always a policy to “deny everything. It is up to the challengers to prove their case and then challenge.”

Yours,
Petra.

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 22 2015, 06:48 PM

But it isn't and still isn't


They are learned people, but I wager that their 'agenda' is likely to be more balanced than that of an entity that wishes to pursue a hidden one. However, if you have evidence, lets see it. Show me how you can justify a cynical stance on their judgement?


Only if they wish to pursue an unjustifiable stance; however, agreeing or disagreeing isn't the issue: it is what is reasonable, and the council's actions, had they chose that route, would have been unjustifiable when measured by 'common sense'.


You obviously don't recognise satire or irony when you read it (don't worry, I recognise trolling when I see it, but this is fun!). However, your arguments remain incoherent as you offer no supplementary ideas other than to contradict and as the old comedy sketch goes: "this isn't an argument; it's just contradiction". I have no doubt you are not thick, but the problem is it takes a lot of imagination to defend the indefensible and you don't seem to show much of that.


How is that an issue? I doubt few people will be motivated to do anything ridiculous; no more ridiculous than building a multi-story development and underground car park in a marsh, anyway.


This shows your ignorance of the judgement. NTC were not defending anything litigious; they were just judged to have behaved unnecessarily. Perhaps now things are in the open the council may be free to explain themselves.




I wonder of anyone is wishing they'd just let Simon have his allotment back, yet?

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 22 2015, 07:14 PM

On a more serious note: now what? we are left with a broken park and ~£100k bill to add to the remedial works bill.

In my view, and has always been the case, I feel it is WBC that have let people down. It is they that bent over backwards to get this development built and it is they that failed to supervise the works properly when the dewatering was requested.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Apr 22 2015, 07:36 PM

Well, it was an awful lot of effort to get it, but fair play to the Council for not stringing it out to the bitter end.

Posted by: Exhausted Apr 22 2015, 07:42 PM

Both the report and the addendum which have now been published by NTC doesn’t seem to be at all contentious so goodness knows why they were so keen to hold onto it. I have read every word from beginning to end and as far as I can tell, the key to the whole problem can be summarised by the water level in the bowling green sump which has never dried out in the past due to lack of rainfall and it was only when the dewatering began that it totally dried to below the base level.
There has to be some blame on the result held by the Environment Agency who licensed the abstraction. A key point is that although a proportion of the pumped water from the bunded and piled area was recharged back into purpose built wells, they were all on the western side of the development and none on the Victoria Park side. That is a serious omission in my opinion by the EA who would have responsibility that the design by the developers would not impact on the area.
.
The final report conclusion was…..

The lack of mitigation(by the Parkway development) along the side nearest the park, plus the fact that the abstractions are large, in the order of 12.1Ml/d make this the most likely explanation for the majority of the lowering of ground water levels and the ground disturbance seen within Victoria Park during 2010.

It also says that the majority of the collated data was from public sources.
What should the council do to attempt to resolve the dilemma. I suspect Costain have offered two fingers but they have to some extent admitted liability by putting water back to the bowling green….

Posted by: Cognosco Apr 22 2015, 07:56 PM

But what was the reason for all the secrecy?
As expected the de-watering is found probably to be the cause of the cracking and look at how much that has cost the precept payers.
To quote our dear Petra it should have been left to the professionals! But alas it would seem that those same professionals who gave permission for the development and the de-watering are not so professional after all?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Apr 22 2015, 08:23 PM

That's how I read it. It was perverse ever to want to keep such an anodyne report secret, and bat-shit crazy to expend all that public money preventing publication. All it did was alienate the trust of the townspeople.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Apr 22 2015, 08:41 PM

Well, the good news is that publication has not damaged NTC's chances of successful litigation. The bad news is that their case isn't obviously as "robust" as we've been led to believe. Publication of the reports might yet encourage an honest debate about the way forward, and if throwing the towel in and writing off that £100k we've already spent is the prudent thing to do then lets do it and move on.

However, it's apparent to everyone from the Tribunal's frank criticism that the Council's grasp of the legal process is, well, bizarre. It's going to be impossible to trust the Council's judgement on this or anything else until the cause for that failure is completely understood and clearly addressed. The Leader of the Council needs to consider his position.

As for the cost - m'eh! Over the five years of the dispute that's only £20k a year, or less than 2p per week on the council tax. We spend ten times that every year on the pomp of the mayor, the allotments, the Gothic town hall, and the moribund market, so better fix that first before we worry about the marginal waste of inept administration.

More important still is that we fix the appalling dysfunctional culture at the Council, because until we do that we'll just have one snafu after another.

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 22 2015, 09:03 PM

That's how I see it. From my humble view and from the information I have read, the developers can hardly be blamed for doing that which they obtained a licence to do!

So, why did the council keep investing in more legal fees? Perhaps it was vanity and arrogance; they felt it would look good on their CV if they could persuade the developer to hand over some dosh for remedial work?

West Berkshire Council, meanwhile, have been totally schtum on all this. I even remember Richard Benyon pitched in early in the project about how he would lend a weight to get some remedial action (not verbatim). It seems he might have read the report shortly after that statement too.

Posted by: Strafin Apr 23 2015, 06:58 AM

Petra said they will though and that they will probably have the judgement over ruled.

Wait a minute though, it's been done hasn't it?

Simon, could Petra be wrong? She's the most intelligent person on the planet though, and despite being unable to offer contradictory evidence to support an argument, unable to type, proof read or use a spell checker, she still maintains that.

Maybe she meant a different report...

Posted by: Turin Machine Apr 23 2015, 09:35 AM

Petra? Naaah, brain the size of a planet. Obviously a superior being, possibly even pan dimensional.

Frightening!

Posted by: Ruwan Uduwerage-Perera Apr 23 2015, 09:53 AM

Congratulations goes to Simon Kirby and Mark Knight for never succumbing to the barriers that they faced for such a long time to reveal the reports that should never have been hidden from public view.

This success could if pressed home lead to further questions that have been fudged by the leadership of Newbury Town Council finally being answered.

I have to say that both Simon and Mark would have made genuinely excellent Liberal Democrat candidates, but my parties loss is the Apoliticals gain.

Yours,

Ruwan Uduwerage-Perera
Liberal Democrat 'whistleblower'

Posted by: Nothing Much Apr 23 2015, 10:31 AM

I only pass by for a yearly Newt....
My vote is for SK ,MK & CF.
I am stuffed here with Guardian folk.
ce

Posted by: Nothing Much Apr 23 2015, 10:53 AM

I think..SOLACE. has a lot to answer for.
ce

Posted by: Nothing Much Apr 23 2015, 12:55 PM

And MM as well

Posted by: GMR Apr 23 2015, 02:44 PM

I second that.

Posted by: NWNREADER Apr 23 2015, 02:47 PM

Is Petra related to Pauline?

Posted by: Cognosco Apr 23 2015, 05:32 PM

Totally agree! He should wear his vexatious badge with honour. Whilst the useless Councillors should hang their heads in shame and do the honourable thing and immediately resign.

Posted by: On the edge Apr 23 2015, 05:58 PM

Thanks Ruwan! Just for the avoidance of doubt, as those who come to NEWTS realise, I am the other Apolitical standing with Simon - I'll wear a vexatious medal with pride.

Posted by: Petra Apr 23 2015, 06:40 PM

Dear Mr Capp,

I think you are under the misapprehension that I joined this forum to debate with the numbskulls on here. You are wrong. I am on here to give another side to the one-sided arguments that are constantly spouted. I am neither worried that you answer me or criticise me or follow your usual diatribe of “don’t feed the trolls” or putting people on “ignore,” whom you can’t get the better of. If this was a private conversation then that would be a different matter. But this is an open forum for all to read. It is more to do with those that view or are on here, but refuse to partake with the fatuous elements on this forum.

Since coming on here I’ve had quite a few PMs saying that it is nice to see somebody standing up to the bully boys on here. Even when people have said they disagree with me, they’ve at least appreciated my point of view (which is so refreshing on here). It is not about you, but those outside judging.

Didn’t you say on here once that you “can’t educate pork”? I agree, that is why I am not interested in trying to educate you, but to respond to a more intelligent element that is on here and beyond. Whether you answer me or not, that is your prerogative, but I shall continue replying to your misinformed or ignorant waffles you so much love sermonizing about.

You, above all else, is the one who is the local Troll. You are on here everyday, every week and every year. Taking your 9,000 odd posts and adding them to your other names you have written approximately 30,000 posts. So I can understand this forum is your life, where no life exists beyond this forum. I don’t blame you for that as we all need something extra in ou lives to make it all bearable. But I would say one thing, there are others here with different points of view other than your self-serving own viewpoint.

Take a leaf out of Monsieurs User23, Blackdog, Crackerjack, On the Edge, Biker1, Simon Kirby and one or two others on here in how to debate without being abusive or up ones own nose.

Yours,

Petra.

Posted by: Exhausted Apr 23 2015, 07:05 PM

For those of you who have read the report, has anyone noticed that the Parkway bridge actually has a name. I have never heard it called anything other than Park Way or Parkway bridge and perhaps the old bridge which was known locally as the American Bridge. Anyway it is referred to in the report, twice I believe as Fishbone Bridge. Where did that come from I ask. I note that Mr Singleton on the letters page of the NWN, has nicknamed it Troll Bridge.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Apr 23 2015, 08:53 PM

Thank you Ruwan. There is certainly a stink at Newbury Town Council, and it won't just go away. I hope I get the chance to do something more about it.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Apr 23 2015, 08:54 PM

Well outed Mark.

Posted by: J C Apr 23 2015, 09:34 PM

You've got my vote OtE! As would you Simon if I could, will be encouraging my family who live in the ward you're standing in to vote for you!

Having read the report, still baffled as to what was so confidential/contentious that NTC couldn't have saved themselves a load of faff and just published it in the first place. Hopefully you both get elected, so that there can be a massive change towards transparency. After all, I think a lot of credibility can be gained from that and a bit of humility!

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 23 2015, 09:52 PM

'Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.'

Posted by: Simon Kirby Apr 23 2015, 10:01 PM

Well that's kind, and encouraging, thank you. I really hope we get the chance to do some more good.

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 23 2015, 10:02 PM

Sadly the electorate are sheep, so I would be surprised if you all made 4 figures.

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 23 2015, 10:42 PM

Would someone clarify if all this stuff is incumbent on the NTC? Was it their responsibility to investigate and 'pay' for remedial work?

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 24 2015, 12:02 AM

Interesting that JSH said they didn't want to publish the documents because it would put them at an unfair tactical disadvantage because their opponent are not required to make public its evidence!

Eh???

Posted by: On the edge Apr 24 2015, 06:20 AM

Thanks!

Posted by: MontyPython Apr 24 2015, 02:12 PM

Advice that you are obviously not taking yourself then!

Posted by: Cognosco Apr 24 2015, 02:55 PM

Yes a case of know your place and do as you are told not as I do!

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 24 2015, 04:30 PM

It saves talking on-topic. I have no idea where the putting on ignore, 30,000 posts, or bully boys comes from. Sounds like someone's on a wind-up. Attacking me means that people can post something when they are unable to address the issues in hand I suppose.



On topic: I suppose that 'most likely' isn't a strong enough position to go to court. I presume therefore, the only rational reason I can think of to withhold the document is that it was seen as a bargaining tool with Costain, OR West Berkshire Council's Environmental Agency asked the council if they would not publish, as it were.

Posted by: MontyPython Apr 24 2015, 04:46 PM

Petra's posts remind me of the "Bag Lady" tramp on Waterloo station, shouting at the passers-by, generally with irrelevant or incomprehensible comments, as she swigs on her bottle of Gin. Does anyone else get the same feeling?

Posted by: GMR Apr 24 2015, 04:59 PM

Yes. Actually, now come to say that, there was a lady - with bag - at Waterloo, shouting her head off as the police dragged her away. But no, too much of a coincidence, but then again, and as Mulder once said, anything is possible. Even aliens.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Apr 24 2015, 05:27 PM

It's a good point. I would suggest that, given the Council has had the reports since 2012, and given that they haven't yet resolved the dispute, that the Council are advised that it is not string enough to go to court.

There's also the problem that the reports are almost certainly inadmissible as evidence.

If the Town Council have managed the dispute with the same competence with which they handled the request for the reports then we have no chance of a successful conclusion to this dispute. There needs to be a thorough review of who got what wrong, and then changes need to be made to the administration.

I read in the paper that Swift-Hooks says something about the reason the Council did not want to publish the reports was because it would give Costain a strategic advantage - so he's admitting that it was always the Councils choice to refuse to disclose the reports, and that the Council have been lying to the public for four years about the reason for not disclosing the reports? It really is contemptible. I would imagine that the cost of the legal fees for just the reports dispute would have paid for the rebuilding of the Parkway wall.

Posted by: Lolly Apr 24 2015, 05:46 PM

Anybody feeling "vexatious" enough to put in an FOI to WBC?

I'd also like to add my congratulations to Ote (Mark) and Simon for persevering with this. Even if they aren't elected (and I really hope they are) I think the new Newbury Council will have no choice but to wake up to the fact that FOI exists and is a regulatory requirement.

Posted by: On the edge Apr 24 2015, 06:27 PM

One of the concerns I have is that the comments eminating from the Council suggest they have decided Costain are wholly to blame. As you've often said, there are other potential parties, such as WBC and perhaps the Environment Agency and indeed God, for the glorious hot weather that particular year. It seems to demonstrate the usual NTC - Fire, Aim, Ready approach.

Posted by: On the edge Apr 24 2015, 06:30 PM

Thanks for that! I'd like to think that the new Council will also fully understand and appreciate the basic points of British justice.

Posted by: Cognosco Apr 24 2015, 06:42 PM

Only if none of them are part of "The Newbury Club" of course!

Posted by: Simon Kirby Apr 24 2015, 07:21 PM

Thank you, and well said.

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 24 2015, 08:01 PM

So the 'burning' question: who's responsible for the mitigation work that was done? I don't know how it works, but would have Costain submitted their proposal to de-water and by what means? Like going to Building Control and submitting the plan of works, or is it not as defined as that with a de-watering licence? Whose responsible for monitoring water levels during the de-watering? Or is that not the way it is usually done?

Posted by: On the edge Apr 24 2015, 09:01 PM

I think that's exactly right. It's likely to be a pretty complex problem and Costain is only one of the parties involved. I don't know how the process works, but I do have a smattering of knowledge about riparian rights etc. and the legal implications of flowing water - which are inevitably complex. For instance, Costain certainly had an agreement to dispose of the water into the canal, so where did it come from? Northbrook is in a culvert by the site, was that pipe broken? And so on and on.

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 24 2015, 09:14 PM

Yes, the more I read the more I am convinced this was a failure of the authorities and we can hardly sue West Berkshire Council. If there was a sudden drop in the water table, then de-watering should have stopped. Or again, is that not the way it works?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Apr 24 2015, 10:03 PM

Let me play Devil's Advocate here:

Consider this photo:


Now explain to me how dropping the water table in the underlying gravels and chalk several meters below the surface will preferentially allow the ground around the culvert to sink and yet leave the culvert itself high and dry. Chalk and gravels don't shrink appreciably when you take out the water.

Consider an alternative: It wasn't the lowering of the water table in the underlying aquifer several meters below the surface which caused the trouble, it was the desiccating of the overlying peat, a layer of partially decomposed vegetation around a meter thick just a matter of inches below the surface. Peat shrinks badly when it dries, so if the summer was unseasonably hot and dry the top meter or so of soils would dry considerably whatever the water table was doing several meters below the surface. However, if the top meter or so of peat had been dug out so that a concrete culvert could be bedded down on the firm foundation of the underlying gravels then any shrinkage in the surrounding peat would see the ground around the culvert sink, but the culvert itself, sitting on the gravel, would stay where it was.

The evidence would appear to suggest that the ground movement is due to the shrinkage of the overlying peat layer and not due to any shrinkage in the gravels and chalk, so the question isn't so much to do with how much the dewatering depressed the water table, but whether dewatering drew down the water table below the peat layer, or whether, being only a meter thick and very close to the surface, the peat layer was always going to be high and dry in an exceptionally hot dry summer.

I don't see that the report addresses this question clearly.

Posted by: blackdog Apr 24 2015, 10:08 PM

Okay, I'm considering it - and wondering when it was taken?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Apr 24 2015, 10:22 PM

Sorry posted it before I'd finished my thesis...

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 24 2015, 10:31 PM

Perhaps if the Apoliticals get in they could commission a hydrogeographical report?

Posted by: MontyPython Apr 24 2015, 11:10 PM

OK lets take a hypothetical case.

I want to de-water my land to build an extension or house. I get the necessary permissions from the EA and WBC.

Just after I have finished my neighbour's house suffer subsidence. What will they / their insurance company do? Take me (or my insurance company) to court or the EA or WBC?

Discuss!

Posted by: Andy Capp Apr 25 2015, 12:06 AM

I guess insurance covers it assuming all work was done according to plan.

Posted by: On the edge Apr 25 2015, 05:58 AM

....and now we are back to the other question they don't like mentioned!

Posted by: blackdog Apr 25 2015, 07:56 AM

Your explanation of the mechanism of the damage (shrinkage of the peat layer) may well be correct - but it is not the mechanism that is in dispute. The issue is what caused the dessication of the peat.

The report (as I read it) accepts there were unusually dry weather conditions - which it deems less likely to cause the problem because we have had almost as dry spells in the past without the damaging effects.

It then notes the far greater effect of the Parkway dewatering on the water table - and views this as the probable cause.

In reality it is almost certain to be a combination of the two - if it had rained more while they were pumping the peat would not have dried out so much.

The real problem NTC seem to have is that the report does not say "in our expert opinion the dewatering caused the problem" but "in our expert opinion the dewatering probably caused the problem."

Now they seem to be stuck in the attitude of we must fight on whatever the cost - egged on by expensive lawyers who are probably saying "we think you have a good case" - and definitely not "we will fight this on a no win no fee basis."

The big gap in the report as I see it is the lack of any supporting evidence of damage outside the park. Did they consult, for instance, the residents of Victora Terrace?

Posted by: Cognosco Apr 25 2015, 12:48 PM

I would imagine that the owners of Victoria Terraces would have consulted their insurance companies and this would be what all parties involved would be afraid of?
I see in the media that Victoria Terraces were mentioned but to what extent of damage was caused I am not clear on?

The insurance companies will of course be looking to claim any insurance monies paid out to owners from some other party if at all possible, knowing how they work, but again it will depend on how much they were out of pocket of course.
Is it NTC, WBC, EA, Costains or others?

Then of course we have the NTC looking like numpties again for not claiming on their insurance for legal costs.

All in all it would appear that Petra is wrong, yet again, in declaring we should leave it all to the professionals as us plebs are not able to understand technical discussions. It would appear that the plebs may indeed have a full understanding, when freely and openly given all the facts, perhaps even better than elected and professional and highly paid individuals and companies?

Posted by: Exhausted Apr 25 2015, 02:39 PM

I believe that the barometer for the whole process of park sinkage must be the sump or well used by the bowling green and the bowling green itself. The sump is a concrete lined well, approximately 6 metres deep. Despite all the hot summers and other weather conditions, the water level normally stands at about 3m down. It went dry, exposing the base level which is a ground base in 2010, after the pumping began. Excavating a further 1m failed to provide natural water. This means that for a period, the level of water bearing gravel below the surface fell by at least 3m. It was at this time the bowling rink sank making it unplayable. The interesting point here is that Costain provided a water source to the bowling club to mitigate their loss of water. I wonder why they did this when they were not responsible.
We do need to look at what else was going on in the development and the park itself. The initial problem as I see it is that the wells built around the development inside and outside the piled or bunded area which was the boundary of what is now the car park, had to serve two purposes. Firstly to remove excess groundwater from the hole in the ground and secondly to take water back in to recharge bore on the exterior. Pumping it over the wall in real terms. As it happens, the recharge only took place on the Western, Northern and Southern sides. This ensured that these three sides were kept watered and thus there was no sinking of buildings on those three sides, Northbrook Street, The Marks & Spencer/Camp Hopson area and that to the north of Park Lane and possibly the old cinema area. The remainder of the water was pumped 24/7 into the Kennet with little chance of that water returning to the park. There was no recharge of water into the East of the development, the sacrifice being Victoria Park. This plan must have been approved by the environment agency who are supposedly the experts in this area.
One other area of concern which does have a bearing is that the natural flow of underground water in the gravel bed of the Kennet valley is towards the East. The flow after pumping and water abstraction started was reversed and flowed in the western area of the park toward the west. This water flow is normally slow and was not sufficient to prevent the huge depression on that side of the park.
There has been some discussion about peat shrinkage and its failure to resize if once drained of water. I believe that there should be some further investigation into this as the area is mainly alluvial soil and is identified as pseudo peat up to 1.5 – 2m thick but only in certain areas and it is not made clear, to my mind, that the water drain was natural due to lack of rain and evaporation, or what is more likely, the water level in the gravel which is normally water bearing, fell to such a level that the water in this peat was drained downwards.
Once again, one has to ask what is to be done now. Costain appear to be refusing to accept any liability as are Standard Life so it seems that it will fall back on the ratepayers to foot the bill. What seems a little odd is that there doesn't seem to be an insurer for the Town Council who lease the park or in fact the owner West Berks Council. What happened with both WBC building control and of course the Environment Agency while all this was being planned and actioned.

Posted by: On the edge Apr 25 2015, 03:21 PM

So in view of all that it's hardly surprising Costain should simply just accept liability; if it was your firm, woukd you? Given the amount our Council has expended would probably have restored the damage several times over, it ain't Costain who've taken us for mugs. The only winners are the lawyers.

Posted by: Exhausted Apr 25 2015, 04:55 PM

It would be interesting to see how the legal costs have stacked up. So far, this hasn't come near a courtroom so whilst a barrister may have been instructed, how many hours could they, the men and women in dark suits, possibly have expended to get where we are. If the council have this sort of legal bill around their neck, one must assume that SLI have racked up similar costs. If so, we're looking at up to a quarter of a million being handed to the legal eagles. How many legal hours would that be I wonder and one assumes that's not the end. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wj_OmtqVLxY

Posted by: Cognosco Apr 26 2015, 10:35 AM

And of course any figures will not be given before the election, just as they did with the Hydrological Report they will do all in their power to keep it stum, knowing this democratic, transparent, open Council?
I do believe Mark & Simon should be given a public thank you for what they had to struggle to achieve. Swift-Hook should be made to make a public apology too for all the deceit the Council has carried out.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Apr 26 2015, 12:30 PM

Thank you, and yes, Swift-Hook has to accept the responsibility for the unwarranted secrecy. In fairness we don't know for certain that NTC have managed this dispute badly as you'd need to know the detail to judge that and of course those details will never be made public, but if NTC have managed the dispute as well as they managed the request for the reports then we have no hope, and as the only actual evidence we have as to the quality of the Council's reasoning and decision-making is the Tribunal judgement of the reports request then I suggest that the only rational view is that Swift-Hook's Town Council is hopelessly inept and cannot currently be trusted with public administration.