Information Tribunal orders NTC to Publish Cracks Reports, NTC orderd to publish hydrogeological reports by 2 May Options

[Simon Kirby]

Linky

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 ) Number of downloads: 39

[Simon Kirby]

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.

[blackdog]

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.

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?