IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

9 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Cracks - Still Nothing
MontyPython
post Mar 17 2014, 06:13 PM
Post #41


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 936
Joined: 16-June 12
Member No.: 8,755



QUOTE (dannyboy @ Mar 17 2014, 12:50 PM) *
seems that they did & wasted a shed load of cash trying to prove that Constain were to blame for some cracks appearing.


Are you really so stupid that you can't understand the point I am making (perhaps you do work for WBC).

All we are asking for is to see the report we have funded (if Costain are not to blame) or action against Costain or compensation if they are.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Simon Kirby
post Mar 17 2014, 06:53 PM
Post #42


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,326
Joined: 20-July 10
From: Wash Common
Member No.: 1,011



QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Mar 17 2014, 01:06 PM) *
It's a bit early to be saying that I think, although the outlook doesn't look good.

This is really the issue and the point MontyPython is making: we just don't know. The hydrogeological reports can tell us how likely it was that the dewatering damaged the park, and with the costings report from the quantity surveyor we can decide for ourselves whether the damage justified pursuing the case.

If the Information Commissioner agrees with the council that they couldn't disclose the hydrogeological reports and that it wasn't in the public interest to disclose the costings report then fair enough (though I think the council might have made a better fist of justifying the non-disclosure), but if it turns out that the council were unfairly withholding reports which didn't support the council's pursuing of the case then that'll be a serious matter.


--------------------
Right an injustice - give Simon Kirby his allotment back!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dannyboy
post Mar 19 2014, 10:48 AM
Post #43


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,056
Joined: 14-May 09
From: Bouvetøya
Member No.: 51



QUOTE (MontyPython @ Mar 17 2014, 06:13 PM) *
Are you really so stupid that you can't understand the point I am making (perhaps you do work for WBC).

All we are asking for is to see the report we have funded (if Costain are not to blame) or action against Costain or compensation if they are.

Nah, I'm not that stupid.

NTC should never have bothered getting a report in the first place, as it was bleedin obvious it would be inconclusive.....

that it is confidential is par for the course. I'm surprised you think otherwise.



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
On the edge
post Mar 19 2014, 11:44 AM
Post #44


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 7,847
Joined: 23-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 98



This week's free paper from the bin in the Library had a front page spade with Councillor Allen saying he was running out of patience with Costain! So are we Councillor Allen, so are we.

He goes on to say the Council has a strong and robust case and every right both morally and legally to issue instructions.

GET ON WITH IT THEN!

As you feel the case is so good, you can't loose. Let's face it, if if was just one of us little people who'd transgressed, I doubt if our local councils would stay proceedings for very long. So what's the problem?


--------------------
Know your place!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post Mar 19 2014, 12:59 PM
Post #45


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,902
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (dannyboy @ Mar 19 2014, 10:48 AM) *
Nah, I'm not that stupid.

NTC should never have bothered getting a report in the first place, as it was bleedin obvious it would be inconclusive.....

that it is confidential is par for the course. I'm surprised you think otherwise.

Is there not a planning/building/environment authority who would have these type of reports for public record? Surely it is down to the WBC to ensure the environment is not adversely affected buy new developments? Should they not have monitored the situation? Normally it is the 'landlord' that deals with these sort of things? I understand that NTC are simply the 'management'.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dannyboy
post Mar 19 2014, 01:53 PM
Post #46


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,056
Joined: 14-May 09
From: Bouvetøya
Member No.: 51



QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Mar 19 2014, 12:59 PM) *
Is there not a planning/building/environment authority who would have these type of reports for public record? Surely it is down to the WBC to ensure the environment is not adversely affected buy new developments? Should they not have monitored the situation? Normally it is the 'landlord' that deals with these sort of things? I understand that NTC are simply the 'management'.

I'm sure there is.

I'm also pretty sure that the plans to build a ruddy great big housing & commercial development were drawn up with full concern for any environmental impact.

What they won't take into account is the effect of the development + a drought.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post Mar 19 2014, 04:14 PM
Post #47


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,902
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (dannyboy @ Mar 19 2014, 01:53 PM) *
I'm sure there is.

I'm also pretty sure that the plans to build a ruddy great big housing & commercial development were drawn up with full concern for any environmental impact.

What they won't take into account is the effect of the development + a drought.

Your assessment has no foundation (pardon the pun) unless you happen to be a geologist of course. That is to say: so what if there was a drought?

My original point is 'they' are obliged to make an environmental assessment. I would have thought a hydrological report would have formed a part of this, bearing-in-mind the area is notoriously 'wet'.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dannyboy
post Mar 19 2014, 04:21 PM
Post #48


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,056
Joined: 14-May 09
From: Bouvetøya
Member No.: 51



QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Mar 19 2014, 04:14 PM) *
Your assessment has no foundation (pardon the pun) unless you happen to be a geologist of course. That is to say: so what if there was a drought?

My original point is 'they' are obliged to make an environmental assessment. I would have thought a hydrological report would have formed a part of this, bearing-in-mind the area is notoriously 'wet'.

So what if there was a drought? You get cracks as the ground dries out.

A hydrological report is a certainty - that why the builders knew they'd need to do some dewatering....
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Cognosco
post Mar 19 2014, 06:21 PM
Post #49


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,452
Joined: 31-October 10
Member No.: 1,212



QUOTE (dannyboy @ Mar 19 2014, 04:21 PM) *
So what if there was a drought? You get cracks as the ground dries out.

A hydrological report is a certainty - that why the builders knew they'd need to do some dewatering....


Ah but only the hole they dug for the car park needing de-watering Victoria Park and it's environs did not that is the problem isn't it? If you stop the equivalent of what amounts to a river flowing whatever is downstream will dry out and crack up and alter that environment.

Mind you we have the whole £1.00 profit we made from the sale of the land so perhaps we should be doffing our caps to the benevolent Standard Life? Perhaps you should be posting how ungrateful the plebs of Newbury are? rolleyes.gif


--------------------
Vexatious Candidate?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dannyboy
post Mar 19 2014, 06:24 PM
Post #50


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,056
Joined: 14-May 09
From: Bouvetøya
Member No.: 51



QUOTE (Cognosco @ Mar 19 2014, 06:21 PM) *
Ah but only the hole they dug for the car park needing de-watering Victoria Park and it's environs did not that is the problem isn't it? If you stop the equivalent of what amounts to a river flowing whatever is downstream will dry out and crack up and alter that environment.

Mind you we have the whole £1.00 profit we made from the sale of the land so perhaps we should be doffing our caps to the benevolent Standard Life? Perhaps you should be posting how ungrateful the plebs of Newbury are? rolleyes.gif

hence the problem of trying to blame Costain for cracks in Victoria Park.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lolly
post Mar 19 2014, 06:25 PM
Post #51


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 151
Joined: 28-June 12
Member No.: 8,763



QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Mar 19 2014, 04:14 PM) *
Your assessment has no foundation (pardon the pun) unless you happen to be a geologist of course. That is to say: so what if there was a drought?

My original point is 'they' are obliged to make an environmental assessment. I would have thought a hydrological report would have formed a part of this, bearing-in-mind the area is notoriously 'wet'.


I've had a look and there is loads of environmental information with the planning documents which presumably was given careful scrutiny by West Berkshire Council. I haven't gone through to see if there is a hydrological report but it would be too technical for me anyway. Documents are here if anybody fancies trawling through them:

http://planning.westberks.gov.uk/rpp/index...05/02843/FULMAJ

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post Mar 19 2014, 07:09 PM
Post #52


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,902
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (dannyboy @ Mar 19 2014, 04:21 PM) *
So what if there was a drought? You get cracks as the ground dries out.

Yes, but are you prepared to bet your life savings that the dewatering (or the development itself) had nothing to do with the problems in Vickie Park?

QUOTE (dannyboy @ Mar 19 2014, 04:21 PM) *
A hydrological report is a certainty - that why the builders knew they'd need to do some dewatering....

So why cannot that be used then? Also, was there any contingency for monitoring the water table during the works? Can it be demonstrated that the water table fell in accordance with the lack of rain and increased sunlight, or not?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dannyboy
post Mar 19 2014, 07:13 PM
Post #53


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,056
Joined: 14-May 09
From: Bouvetøya
Member No.: 51



QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Mar 19 2014, 07:09 PM) *
Yes, but are you prepared to bet your life savings that the dewatering (or the development itself) had nothing to do with the problems in Vickie Park?


So why cannot that be used then? Also, was there any contingency for monitoring the water table during the works? Can it be demonstrated that the water table fell in accordance with the lack of rain and increased sunlight, or not?



I think I have already said, months ago, that the problem is there won't be any unequivocal proof that the dewatering was to blame. For every 'expert' who says it is, there will be one who says it isn't. The only winners will be the lawyers.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
On the edge
post Mar 19 2014, 07:43 PM
Post #54


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 7,847
Joined: 23-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 98



QUOTE (dannyboy @ Mar 19 2014, 07:13 PM) *
I think I have already said, months ago, that the problem is there won't be any unequivocal proof that the dewatering was to blame. For every 'expert' who says it is, there will be one who says it isn't. The only winners will be the lawyers.

No, you've got that wrong. NTC who have the report are saying very clearly that their case against Costain is rock solid. As our civic leaders, they will be relying on expert advice and guidance, otherwise they couldn't and wouldn't be making such statements. Costain clearly aren't going to hand over the cash until the last moment; who would? So there is absolutely no reason for any delay in starting proceedings is there; what have they got to loose?


--------------------
Know your place!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
On the edge
post Mar 19 2014, 07:43 PM
Post #55


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 7,847
Joined: 23-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 98



QUOTE (dannyboy @ Mar 19 2014, 07:13 PM) *
I think I have already said, months ago, that the problem is there won't be any unequivocal proof that the dewatering was to blame. For every 'expert' who says it is, there will be one who says it isn't. The only winners will be the lawyers.

No, you've got that wrong. NTC who have the report are saying very clearly that their case against Costain is rock solid. As our civic leaders, they will be relying on expert advice and guidance, otherwise they couldn't and wouldn't be making such statements. Costain clearly aren't going to hand over the cash until the last moment; who would? So there is absolutely no reason for any delay in starting proceedings is there; what have they got to loose?


--------------------
Know your place!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dannyboy
post Mar 19 2014, 07:57 PM
Post #56


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,056
Joined: 14-May 09
From: Bouvetøya
Member No.: 51



QUOTE (On the edge @ Mar 19 2014, 07:43 PM) *
No, you've got that wrong. NTC who have the report are saying very clearly that their case against Costain is rock solid. As our civic leaders, they will be relying on expert advice and guidance, otherwise they couldn't and wouldn't be making such statements. Costain clearly aren't going to hand over the cash until the last moment; who would? So there is absolutely no reason for any delay in starting proceedings is there; what have they got to loose?



So they are experts all of a sudden are they? If it were so, why are they not in court ?

the whole thing is a total waste of cash.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post Mar 19 2014, 08:06 PM
Post #57


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,902
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (dannyboy @ Mar 19 2014, 07:57 PM) *
So they are experts all of a sudden are they? If it were so, why are they not in court? the whole thing is a total waste of cash.

Taking steps to investigate the problem was incumbent on either WBC or NTC, but to pursue it like they have is another matter. Yes, lawyers are getting rich, but then it seems ill-advised of NTC to have continued with this without the backing of WBC, who I am sure were originally behind them on this.

I think it would be quite reasonable of us to ask who decided the strategy regarding the pursuit of all this. If all your opinions are fairly accurate, then someone, or some people are guilty of a rather big balls up.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Simon Kirby
post Mar 19 2014, 08:07 PM
Post #58


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,326
Joined: 20-July 10
From: Wash Common
Member No.: 1,011



QUOTE (dannyboy @ Mar 19 2014, 07:57 PM) *
So they are experts all of a sudden are they? If it were so, why are they not in court ?

the whole thing is a total waste of cash.

I'm entirely with you here DB, though I think OtE had his tongue in his cheek.


--------------------
Right an injustice - give Simon Kirby his allotment back!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Nothing Much
post Mar 19 2014, 08:45 PM
Post #59


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,690
Joined: 16-July 11
Member No.: 6,171



though I think OtE had his tongue in his cheek

Bleedin' ironyists get everwhere.
ce
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
On the edge
post Mar 19 2014, 09:08 PM
Post #60


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 7,847
Joined: 23-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 98



QUOTE (Nothing Much @ Mar 19 2014, 08:45 PM) *
though I think OtE had his tongue in his cheek

Bleedin' ironyists get everwhere.
ce


I've been following your lead on the DIY front, but not grouting, just sticking things with strong glue....the smell is lovely......


--------------------
Know your place!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

9 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 28th March 2024 - 05:34 PM