Cllr Ruwan Uduwerage-Perera Resigns, Time for a clear-out at the town-hall? Options

[Simon Kirby]

In the Newbury Weekly today is the news that Cllr Ruwan Uduwerage-Perera has resigned from the Town Council for what he says is the failure of the Council to serve the public.

RUP was reported to have queried why the Council had not claimed on £50k worth of legal expenses insurance, and I think there are some questions to be asked about how that legitimate query precipitated his being elbowed out of the deputy-leader role, and now out of the council altogether.

Do you still have confidence that the Town Council are serving the public?

[Andy Capp]

Yes, this error, presumably by an individual, has cost in terms of cash-flow, but at least one councillor boasts that the council will win in a court case, should it go to court. Although one has to wonder what is holding our little pack of political rottweilers back!

[On the edge]

Yes, this error, presumably by an individual, has cost in terms of cash-flow, but at least one councillor boasts that the council will win in a court case, should it go to court. Although one has to wonder what is holding our little pack of political rottweilers back!

Ummm. so if this 'court case' is so cut and dried, what are we waiting for? How many years have we been waiting? I know the legal profession is slow but really? Not sure I'd trust the information we e been fed.

[Andy Capp]

Ummm. so if this 'court case' is so cut and dried, what are we waiting for? How many years have we been waiting? I know the legal profession is slow but really? Not sure I'd trust the information we e been fed.

Frankly, nor do I, but if waiting improves success and 'value', that's reasonable I think. West Berkshire Council seem to have have done jack to help.

[Simon Kirby]

Frankly, nor do I, but if waiting improves success and 'value', that's reasonable I think. West Berkshire Council seem to have have done jack to help.

And I still don't see what it has to do with WBC. I don't doubt that there are intrigues between the two councils, but in this matter I see the town council to be entirely responsible for the snafu. I believe that we have been lied to about the nature of the damage to the park, and that if there was any damage at all that it was talked up hugely by the council.

Repairing the bowling greens for example: the council got a quote of £20k to repair what they allege to be subsidence damage. I simply don't believe that the dewatering in a coffer dam could have caused this kind of subsidence. I guess it's conceivable that the dewatering might have drawn the water table down a bit and could possibly have been responsible for the relatively shallow well running dry, but at worst that would have just let the grass die and wouldn't have caused subsidence, but it was an exceptionally hot and dry summer in 2010 and at best the council might conceivably win a proportion of the cost of re-seeding the bowling greens - maybe a few grand? But what the Council did was instruct the bowling club to stop all maintenance on the greens so that they would look in as poor a condition as possible, and then they conflated the £20k quotation to relay the greens with the £45k cost of removing some overly-big conifers that have grown up around the greens and are sucking up the moisture and shading out the light. So the Council talk up the marginal damage to the grass of the greens which is as likely caused by hot dry summer and lack of winter maintenance, and they conflate the minimal cost of putting that right with the cost of putting right their own chronic mismanagement of the park, and they hide the hydrogeological and engineer's reports from us so that we can't see what they're up to. That kind of nonsense might convince the casual reader of the NWN, but it's hardly going to convince Costain to part with their readies, and stuck between the options of admitting they made it all up or litigating in the certain knowledge that they'll lose their shirt, the council do what they do best - nothing!

[Andy Capp]

And I still don't see what it has to do with WBC. I don't doubt that there are intrigues between the two councils, but in this matter I see the town council to be entirely responsible for the snafu. I believe that we have been lied to about the nature of the damage to the park, and that if there was any damage at all that it was talked up hugely by the council.

Isn't the Park WBC's property? Isn't WBC responsible for local developments and the effects on the environment? Wouldn't you expect WBC to hold all the data that is currently being argued over? Even Richard Beyon jumped in a few years back and said he would do all he could to help with a resolution. Currently that appears to be roughly nothing.

Repairing the bowling greens for example: the council got a quote of £20k to repair what they allege to be subsidence damage. I simply don't believe that the dewatering in a coffer dam could have caused this kind of subsidence. I guess it's conceivable that the dewatering might have drawn the water table down a bit and could possibly have been responsible for the relatively shallow well running dry, but at worst that would have just let the grass die and wouldn't have caused subsidence, but it was an exceptionally hot and dry summer in 2010 and at best the council might conceivably win a proportion of the cost of re-seeding the bowling greens - maybe a few grand? But what the Council did was instruct the bowling club to stop all maintenance on the greens so that they would look in as poor a condition as possible, and then they conflated the £20k quotation to relay the greens with the £45k cost of removing some overly-big conifers that have grown up around the greens and are sucking up the moisture and shading out the light. So the Council talk up the marginal damage to the grass of the greens which is as likely caused by hot dry summer and lack of winter maintenance, and they conflate the minimal cost of putting that right with the cost of putting right their own chronic mismanagement of the park, and they hide the hydrogeological and engineer's reports from us so that we can't see what they're up to. That kind of nonsense might convince the casual reader of the NWN, but it's hardly going to convince Costain to part with their readies, and stuck between the options of admitting they made it all up or litigating in the certain knowledge that they'll lose their shirt, the council do what they do best - nothing!

The obvious question is prove it? Personally I think it is a figment of your imagination inspired by a desire to see the council brought down.

[Simon Kirby]

Isn't the Park WBC's property? Isn't WBC responsible for the local developments and environment? Wouldn't expect WBC to hold all the data that is currently being argued over?


The obvious question is prove it?

There's no disputing that the Council told the bowling club to stop maintaining the greens several years ago as it's in the council's minutes (and I can't be asked to find it, but it's there if you want to look). As for proving their motivation, there is of course no proving that, you have to make up your own mind.

[Andy Capp]

There's no disputing that the Council told the bowling club to stop maintaining the greens several years ago as it's in the council's minutes (and I can't be asked to find it, but it's there if you want to look). As for proving their motivation, there is of course no proving that, you have to make up your own mind.

It is one thing stating fact (stop watering the green) but it is a political trick to weave one's prejudiced into the reasons why. I have no doubt you have good reason to feel aggrieved, but that shouldn't get in the way of the truth.

[Simon Kirby]

It is one thing stating fact (stop watering the green) but it is a political trick to weave one's prejudiced into the reasons why. I have no doubt you have good reason to feel aggrieved, but that shouldn't get in the way of the truth.

You're accusing me of lying, that's hardly fair. There is no "truth" when it comes to deciding on the council's motivation, there is only perception, and mine is evidence-based. Other perceptions may be valid, and if you have evidence to support some other point of view then put it forward, but it's hardly fair to dispute my take of the evidence when you're not aware of what was said and done.

[Andy Capp]

You're accusing me of lying, that's hardly fair. There is no "truth" when it comes to deciding on the council's motivation, there is only perception, and mine is evidence-based. Other perceptions may be valid, and if you have evidence to support some other point of view then put it forward, but it's hardly fair to dispute my take of the evidence when you're not aware of what was said and done.

Firstly, I didn't accuse you of lying; I just see an embittered person who only sees things from one angle.

While your view may be possible, I don't buy it, although I believe the council have managed the dispute poorly and have shown themselves as being incompetent in that regard; however, if the evidence for support of the council's position is weak, why don't the owners of the data release it, what have they to hide?

While I remember the council tucking you up on a technicality, I suspect that in this case the reverse has happened, viz, the council's case is sound, but they have crucial but inadmissible evidence.

Personally, I cannot see why the data cannot be released. It seems preposterous. It is just data.