The Cost of Park-Gate Options

[Simon Kirby]

In an article in today's paper the NWN put the current cost of Park-Gate, that is the cost of temporary repairs, legal costs and a hydrogeological report, in the region of £24k, but by my reckoning the administrative cost of Park-Gate is already £50,749, and that is just the legal and survey costs. If there has been any actual repairs then I think their costs to date has been minimal.

CODE

6 Dec 10  Carried out Hydrogeological Asessment ...                    £5,363.88
7 Mar 11  For hydro geological assessment ...                          £3,090.00
10 May 11 Legal services pertaining to Newbury Parkway Development     £8,029.20
17 May 11 Hydrogeological Assessment at meeting with NTC solicitors      £198.71
18 Aug 11 Legal services re: Victoria Park                             £3,367.46
15 Dec 11 Legal services re: Victoria Park                             £1,808.40
30 May 12 Pakway legal costs                                           £2,849.40
16 Jan 13 Legal Fees £5,945.60 Survey of damage £3,600.00              £9,545.60
1 Apr 13  Professional fees for Victoria Park subsidence, etc          £4,326.00
11 Jul 13 Legal fees (Victoria Park)                                   £5,422.50
31 Jul 13 Victoria Park: Experts report on future potential costs      £6,748.44
                                                                      £50,749.59

The Bowls Club are disappointed because the Council has declined to spend what, in the Council's own estimation, would be £84,500 to get the pitches back into a playable condition, but the legal costs are bound to come in at more than this before the matter is settled. The best settlement the Council might possibly hope for is maybe half the cost of the damage with each side picking up their own legal costs - so we'll get maybe £50k, but it'll cost us £100k to get it, and that's best-case. Worst case is that Costains won't offer anything and the Council litigate and lose, and it wouldn't be difficult for the cost to top £250k in that scenario.

I would also like to understand much more about who is responsible for what, because I think the Bowl Club are actually responsible for the maintenance of the pitches.

I think it's cost far too much to pursue a weak claim, and I feel strongly that the Council have avoided a public challenge by suppressing the hydrogeological report. The Environmental Information Regulations oblige the Council to publish the hydrogeological report and commercial confidence isn't a valid exemption to disclosure. The Regulations exists in large part to ensure that public authorities are transparent in their actions and that the public can hold them to account. I think there's too much public money at stake simply to trust this Council to do the right thing and they need to publish everything they have now.

[Mr Brown]

Amazing; doshing out cash to lawyers and consultants is an easy way to ruin. Are the Councils supposed to be short of £17 million? This seems a great way to help...not.

[Simon Kirby]

Amazing; doshing out cash to lawyers and consultants is an easy way to ruin. Are the Councils supposed to be short of £17 million? This seems a great way to help...not.

Actually the legal and professional bill for Park-Gate at the end of July was £50,749.59 - I missed a bill for £4,326 from April - but hey, it's only money.

The Council has also spent another £6k on what it only described as "legal services" since the start of Park-Gate, but as it wasn't obvious what that was for so I haven't included it in the Park-Gate total.

They spent another £5,280 with their solicitors for "advice" over an employment dispute this year.

Since the start of Park-Gate the Council has also spent another £8,323 in legal fees in a dispute with an allotment tenant over £20 of rent.

[Mr Brown]

That's mad. Wouldn't it be better to promote the present Chief out of the way and employ a solicitor instead? Far cheaper.