What's the craic? We may never now, cause of the Parkway cracks may never be disclosed! Options

[Andy Capp]

An interesting article in this weeks NWN that had Mr Swift-Hook stating that we (the public) may NEVER get to see the results of the crack study! It looks as though someone has signed our right to see it away!

[Simon Kirby]

An interesting article in this weeks NWN that had Mr Swift-Hook stating that we (the public) may NEVER get to see the results of the crack study! It looks as though someone has signed our right to see it away!

I think someone with a bit of gumption now needs to make the request under the Environmental Information Regulations and take the issue up with the Information Commissioner. It will take some serious time and effort because the council will play nasty and declare you to be vexatious, and I very much expect that they will try and hide the incriminating evidence from the Information Commissioner. It's a reasonably complicated business to defeat the council's reliance on EIR exemptions, and I would be very surprised if they are not right now taking legal advice on how to frustrate any request.

In addition to that it's not just the report you need - that's unlikley in itself to be very interesting - if the council are hiding anything then they're hiding the financial mismanagement of Parkgate. It's very difficult to ask specifically if you don't know what you're after, and the council are hardly going to volunteer incriminating financial information.

The town needs to know exactly how much time and money the council has spent on this, for what potential return, and whether those decisions were prudent and supported by the reports.

[Cognosco]

An interesting article in this weeks NWN that had Mr Swift-Hook stating that we (the public) may NEVER get to see the results of the crack study! It looks as though someone has signed our right to see it away!

Oh well there's a suprise eh? How many thousands has this cost the taxpayer and then we don't even get the report published. Swift Half strikes again!

[CharlieF]

I think someone with a bit of gumption now needs to make the request under the Environmental Information Regulations and take the issue up with the Information Commissioner. It will take some serious time and effort because the council will play nasty and declare you to be vexatious, and I very much expect that they will try and hide the incriminating evidence from the Information Commissioner. It's a reasonably complicated business to defeat the council's reliance on EIR exemptions, and I would be very surprised if they are not right now taking legal advice on how to frustrate any request.

In addition to that it's not just the report you need - that's unlikley in itself to be very interesting - if the council are hiding anything then they're hiding the financial mismanagement of Parkgate. It's very difficult to ask specifically if you don't know what you're after, and the council are hardly going to volunteer incriminating financial information.

The town needs to know exactly how much time and money the council has spent on this, for what potential return, and whether those decisions were prudent and supported by the reports.

I wonder sometimes whether it might not be quicker and cheaper for a group of concerned citizens club together to commission an independent report and use it to flush out the truth. Either that or a leaky photocopier at the Town Hall...

[Andy Capp]

You're talking thousands of pounds.

At the end of the day, the Parkway development either cause the cracks, contributed towards the cracks, or didn't cause the cracks. My guess is that it is deemed to have contributed, or there are conflicting reports and that is why there's an issue.

What is very regretful, is the amount of secrecy that surrounds both councils' activities on this and other Newbury issues.

[MontyPython]

You're talking thousands of pounds.

At the end of the day, the Parkway development either cause the cracks, contributed towards the cracks, or didn't cause the cracks. My guess is that it is deemed to have contributed, or there are conflicting reports and that is why there's an issue.

What is very regretful, is the amount of secrecy that surrounds both councils' activities on this and other Newbury issues.

Maybe WBC are considered "involved" for allowing/encouraging the development and the pumping of water from the site without asking for adequate checks to be made.

Of course then the NTC councillors would want to protect their ar$es from criticism of their WBC roles!

[Simon Kirby]

Maybe WBC are considered "involved" for allowing/encouraging the development and the pumping of water from the site without asking for adequate checks to be made.

Of course then the NTC councillors would want to protect their ar$es from criticism of their WBC roles!

I'm not convinced. I very much doubt that all of the councillors have been allowed to see the report and correspondence, and it's conceivable that no councillors have seen it and that they've just taken it on trust from the officers that everything is being handled OK. As a councillor you have relatively limited power of access to council documents and information and if the officers want to keep something from you they have quite a degree of latitude to do just that. In my experience councillors take very little interest in council business, it's only when it affects them personally that councillors actually take any interest. With something as toxic as the cracks debacle I can't see any of the councillors wanting to touch it with a barge pole, so it's altogether possible that the snafu is being managed entirely by the officers with the councillors being given little option and having little inclination to do anything but toe the establishment line.

[Simon Kirby]

What did jump out at me in yesterday's news article as the claim that the whole debacle has cost the tax-payer £25k - that's legal fees, reports, and repairs.

Now the council have already repaired everything that needs repairing, so the sum total of the council's actual losses is in the small £thousands - maybe £10k. And yet the council have spent maybe twice that in legal and professional fees, and probably ten times that in staff costs. It's this mismanagement that I believe the council are hiding.

[user23]

What did jump out at me in yesterday's news article as the claim that the whole debacle has cost the tax-payer £25k - that's legal fees, reports, and repairs.

Now the council have already repaired everything that needs repairing, so the sum total of the council's actual losses is in the small £thousands - maybe £10k. And yet the council have spent maybe twice that in legal and professional fees, and probably ten times that in staff costs. It's this mismanagement that I believe the council are hiding.

Perhaps there's message here about listening to certain people who call for an expensive enquiry into everything?

[Andy Capp]

Perhaps there's message here about listening to certain people who call for an expensive enquiry into everything?

I don't remember anyone calling for an expensive enquiry.

[On the edge]

I can't either!

[Simon Kirby]

Perhaps there's message here about listening to certain people who call for an expensive enquiry into everything?

Are you confusing this with something else? Richard's been know to demand public enquiries, and I remember you making a bit of a thing about it with the CCTV, but not into this issue, not that I recall.

The point here is that it's prudent to risk a relatively small proportion of any losses in order to peruse the recovery of that losses, but as you might fail to recover the loss then it would be reckless to risk any more. What appears to have happened here is that the Council have risked more than the original loss, and having failed to recover that loss their mismanagement has cost the town more than the original loss, and that's what they're covering up.

[MontyPython]

I think User is saying is don't ask the incompetents in Local Government to do anything, or it will cost you a lot of money for no results!

[user23]

I can't either!

How quickly you forget.

Here's you agreeing with calls for an enquiry

[Andy Capp]

How quickly you forget.

Here's you agreeing with calls for an enquiry

There seems to be an adjective missing. Besides, that reference is about OTE suggesting an enquiry should be had about the commissioning of the report.

[Simon Kirby]

Moving away from the problem of the secrecy at the council for a moment, I think we really need to be asking our politicos (who we know read the forum) why the park is still in such a wretched mess, almost three years after the wheels started to fall off.

The Council have already borrowed £250k on the pretext of improving the park, but it's still looking more boiled sweet than jewel in the crown. Are we ever going to have a decent park, one with sanitary toilets, level playing surfaces, grass rather then mud, a fence round the kiddies' play area, a cafe that doesn't look like a block house, and planting to admire? The park is an embarrassment. The Council is sitting like a rabbit in the headlights. It made a right mess of managing a simple problem and then made it ten times worse by trying to cover up the mess, and now they can't think what to do.

Perhaps mediation would help.

[Andy Capp]

Or medication!


Simon, what would stop SLI from making a statement that they can confirm they had no part in the earth movement of Victoria park? An agreement with NTC?

[Richard Garvie]

NTC will not publish the report as it's the wrong type of report. This is why NTC leader Julian Swift Hook went on the radio and confirmed that he was only asking Costain to accept partial liability.

If there was a case to answer, why has it not gone to court??

The residents and businesses who are thousands of pounds out of pocket through damage repairs and increased insurance payments should have this information so they know who to claim damages from?

[Andy Capp]

If the repair bill is 'only' £10k, I'd of thought £5k would have been a cheaper option for Costain to accept, rather than them employ 'defence' lawyers? Even a goodwill gesture, maybe?

[Simon Kirby]

Or medication!


Simon, what would stop SLI from making a statement that they can confirm they had no part in the earth movement of Victoria park? An agreement with NTC?

If SLI and NTC have entered into some contractual agreement as a compromise to the dispute then I think either could sue the other for breach of contract should one party break the terms of that agreement, such as an agreement to say nothing public.

Haven't SLI already stated that they are not responsible?

I don't think NTC can avoid being forced to publish the original hydrogeological report. The story of the commercial privilege came out after the first report and that's not going to be retrospective so I think the Information Commissioner can require the council to release it.

I also think the Information Commissioner can force the council to publish any confidentiality agreement - not necessarily the information that was passed to the council in confidence by SLI, but the text of the agreement to keep it confidential - I don't entirely believe there was such an agreement as claimed by NTC so it would be interesting to see it there was and what its terms were.

I think there's still a good chance that all of the information can be dragged out of NTC, except perhaps the water table measurements that NTC claim SLI provided in confidence. The water table measurements are technical evidence so not particularly important on their own, what does need to be in the public domain is the scientific opinion and business case for the continued spend, and all of that should be available under the Environmental Information Regulations.

It would also be telling to see what EIR exemptions NTC rely on, because it's their contention that they would like to publish everything but a confidentiality agreement with SLI prevents them - however, if they were to rely on other exemptions unconnected with any agreement with SLI then that would rather expose that as a lie.