Public faces £105,000 bill to repair damage, up to £105,000 of public money needed to fix the bowls club! Options

[Andy Capp]

A rather interesting comment from Julian Swift-Hook in this weeks NWN.



"This is certainly the sort of expenditure that we are coming to record as part of the impact of Victoria Park in the construction of the Parkway site. In the longer term that's what we hope will be the resolution - that the costs of the damage to the park, which includes the bowls club, will not have to be met by the council."

Unfortunately, I think Mr Swift-Hook has miss-worded his first sentence (or the NWN have not transcribed it accurately!), as it otherwise implies that Victoria Park has affected Parkway, although the suspicion is that it is the other way round. If I am correct, I infer that Swifty-Hook is of the opinion that the Parkway development, at least in part, has adversely impacted on Vickie Park. Either that, or he is hoping for a charitable act from someone.

[Andy Capp]

Look busy ... it's admin again!

[Simon Kirby]

I'd like to know more about the Bowl's Club's relationship with the council. It was always a source of frustration over many years that while the Bowls Club's rent on their pitches was never increased the allotment rents were increased year after year - quite unlawfully as it happens, because councils are obliged to treat all of their leisure services the same.

It was also a source of considerable frustration that the Bowls Club was allowed to self-manage, but that any discussion of the allotments self-managing was suppressed by the Council.

This latest snippet has made the news because the Council want to renegotiate the lease with the bowls club, and the club want the council to make some improvements because half of their pitches are sub-standard, and the council haven't felled a troublesome tree that the club have been complaining about.

It just seems odd that NTC should pick up the bill for any repair if the club are already leasing the pitches, so I'd like to understand that arrangement better.

[Andy Capp]

I agree it seems strange. If the council lease out the pitches, perhaps they are obliged to provide that which the club pay for, although as a council I would have just discounted the rent to compensate the loss of ground. Would rentable value of the ground (leisure) be valued different to an allotment (agricultural)? Also, Simon, do you know for fact that the bowls club have had 'favourable' rent reviews, when compared to allotments, in the recent past?

[Andy Capp]

Anyone know if there might be some legal time frame after which, if it was argued successfully that Costain were responsible, they could avoid compulsory compensation?

[On the edge]

This is decidedly odd. It's a huge sum of money simply to repair a municipal games pitch. Are they expecting premier league standards? Being blunt, bowls are a minority pastime and certainly by no means an essential activity. Unless the money does come from another and private sector source, as a community, in the present economic circumstances, we simply can't afford this. Indeed, I'd argue that even if times were good, it would still be very hard to justify. Can we expect similar sized bills for the tennis courts and football pitches which being in the same area must have suffered similar damage?

[On the edge]

Anyone know if there might be some legal time frame after which, if it was argued successfully that Costain were responsible, they could avoid compulsory compensation?

I suspect it's simply a stand off. All the time it's out of court, why would they agree to settle? My view is the delay is more due to the lack of any evidence that would stand the test.

[Simon Kirby]

I agree it seems strange. If the council lease out the pitches, perhaps they are obliged to provide that which the club pay for, although as a council I would have just discounted the rent to compensate the loss of ground. Would rentable value of the ground (leisure) be valued different to an allotment (agricultural)? Also, Simon, do you know for fact that the bowls club have had 'favourable' rent reviews, when compared to allotments, in the recent past?

Rent for allotments is regulated by statute (Section 10 of the Allotments Act 1950) and allotments must "be let at such rent as a tenant may reasonably be expected to pay" where the courts (in Harwood) have decided that "reasonable" is more or less whatever the council decides as long as it takes into account a sensible range of relevant factors and only concerns itself with deciding what is a reasonable rent for allotments and doesn't think about how much revenue it would like to make. To my knowledge a council can charge what it likes for the rent of its bowls pitches, but the implication of Harwood is that a council must treat all of its leisure service the same and subsidise each to the same degree.

In the same time that allotment rent for a full plot has gone up from £35 to the current £75, the bowls club have paid £700 for their rent without an increase.

[Andy Capp]

I suspect it's simply a stand off. All the time it's out of court, why would they agree to settle? My view is the delay is more due to the lack of any evidence that would stand the test.

Quite possible, but without proof I still am sure Parkway is the primary reason for the damage. Costain's refusal to publish their data is the main reason for my thinking that.

[Simon Kirby]

Anyone know if there might be some legal time frame after which, if it was argued successfully that Costain were responsible, they could avoid compulsory compensation?

I think you have to bring a claim for damages to property within six years of the damage, though if the council have already taken a claim to court and stayed it pending negotiations then the clock stops and they have as much time as they like. The council huffed and puffed, but it's not clear whether they actually served the claim form or not.

[On the edge]

Quite possible, but without proof I still am sure Parkway is the primary reason for the damage. Costain's refusal to publish their data is the main reason for my thinking that.

You are probably right. I suspect that nothing will happen unless we engage my learned friends.

[Simon Kirby]

Quite possible, but without proof I still am sure Parkway is the primary reason for the damage. Costain's refusal to publish their data is the main reason for my thinking that.

I don't believe we actually know that Costain have refused anything. As it happens, if the Costain's data is the volumes of water they abstracted (and if it isn't that then I don't know what it might be) then that's emissions data, and the Council have a duty to publish that data despite any contract to the contrary

Regulation 12 (9) To the extent that the environmental information to be disclosed relates to information on emissions, a public authority shall not be entitled to refuse to disclose that information under an exception referred to in paragraphs (5)(d) to (g).

and NTC appear to be relying on the exemptions in Regulation 12 (5) e, and f:

(e)the confidentiality of commercial or industrial information where such confidentiality is provided by law to protect a legitimate economic interest;

(f)the interests of the person who provided the information where that person— (i)was not under, and could not have been put under, any legal obligation to supply it to that or any other public authority; (ii)did not supply it in circumstances such that that or any other public authority is entitled apart from these Regulations to disclose it; and (iii)has not consented to its disclosure; or

There is another exemption to the duty to disclose under which the council can still argue that it would harm their court case if they were to release the information, but it's a difficult argument to make being as how the information came from Costains in the first place.

[On the edge]

I think you have to bring a claim for damages to property within six years of the damage, though if the council have already taken a claim to court and stayed it pending negotiations then the clock stops and they have as much time as they like. The council huffed and puffed, but it's not clear whether they actually served the claim form or not.

If this is to move forward, the Council are going to have to come up with a realistic claim and not one just based on the Bowls Club. It will also need to be able top stand close scrutiny. It would also be interesting to know if any of the adjoining residents suffered damage and what their insurers did about it. There is also the small matter of the report, which we also paid for; that might not have been such a bright idea if we'd pursued this in the normal way and involved the Council's insurers from the start. That is, of course, if they have insured the their risk.

[Andy Capp]

I don't believe we actually know that Costain have refused anything.

Or put another way, Julian Swift-Hooks has stated publicly that the council was handed privileged information that it legally may not disclose. This has yet to be refuted by the owners of that data, or explained why we may not see it. It is reasonable to assume that it is because it may contain potentially damaging data.

[Cognosco]

Or put another way, Julian Swift-Hooks has stated publicly that the council was handed privileged information that it legally may not disclose. This has yet to be refuted by the owners of that data, or explained why we may not see it. It is reasonable to assume that it is because it may contain potentially damaging data.

Yes agree, but the question is damaging to who?

[DJE]

If the cause of the damage has not been identified, and rectified, what would be the point of repairing the bowling greens, with an attendant risk of the damage recurring?

I can think of better ways of spending taxpayers money than bowling greens.

[Simon Kirby]

If the cause of the damage has not been identified, and rectified, what would be the point of repairing the bowling greens, with an attendant risk of the damage recurring?

I can think of better ways of spending taxpayers money than bowling greens.

Cost of repairs: £105k. That's more or less what the council spend each year providing an allotment service which would be free for the tax-payer under self-management. Same as the cost of providing the ceremonial mayor for a year.

[Andy Capp]

What I don't see is why West Berkshire Council aren't appearing to do anything? Surely the development was overseen by Building Control and the the relevant environment department? Or could that be the reason they are reticent; they are party to the balls-up/cover-up, whatever you will? Indeed, I'm beginning to wonder if this is just one big ruse by all the parties involved.

[Exhausted]

I have no doubt in my mind that de-watering the ground would have had an adverse effect on the stability of the ground from which water was pumped. I recall standing on the southern bank of the Kennet below the bridge and being amazed at the amount of water coming out of the two black twelve inch pipes hanging down the buttress.

What I am a bit surprised is that the damage all appears to be to the east of the site and I wonder why none of the buildings or even the road surface of Northbrook Street has not also collapsed in a similar way. This may be due to the way the water was pumped but it would be interesting to be able to examine that area. I assume that in the past, that area of the town has been excavated and that the support for the road and the shops is on firmer ground than the park.
The row of cottages at the Northern end of the park would have been built pre 1914 and will sit on very limited foundations because that's the way they did it in those days. Normal ground movement might allow the building to move without problems as mortar is very forgiving and tends to self heal. That said, large variations in the stability of the ground will undoubtedly not be forgiven and will cause the brickwork to open. I wonder, if this is a problem in those houses, how many of the residents have gone to their insurers for recompense.

[JeffG]

That said, large variations in the stability of the ground will undoubtedly not be forgiven and will cause the brickwork to open. I wonder, if this is a problem in those houses, how many of the residents have gone to their insurers for recompense.

That is all wild speculation, of course. unless you know anyone who lives there.