David Allen fights back against Simon Kirby's false accusations, Deputy Leader of Newbury Town Council puts Mr Kirby right! Options

[Andy Capp]

Interesting that Mr Allen reiterates that the council used data sourced from a file which Costain slapped a binding NDA on. If that is the case, how did the council think they were going to get anywhere with their claim? And more importantly for me, why didn't West Berkshire Council ensure they had legal access to this data?

[On the edge]

An amazing letter! I thought the best bit was at the end, where he justifies the expense and delays by appealing to the public view of litigation!!! Err, yes, but most would say the only winners are the lawyers.

Wasn't there once a very good comedian with a similar name? ....sadly ours isn't at all funny.

[Cognosco]

An amazing letter! I thought the best bit was at the end, where he justifies the expense and delays by appealing to the public view of litigation!!! Err, yes, but most would say the only winners are the lawyers.

Wasn't there once a very good comedian with a similar name? ....sadly ours isn't at all funny.

I know one thing for certain it is the poor taxpayer who will lose out.......as per usual with this incompetent shower.

I can see why they like to avoid responding to queries and questions and try to keep the plebs out of reach of them........the more a Councillor opens their mouth the more it proves just how incompetent they really are!

It would really make an interesting comedy show if only for the fact it is costing the poor taxpayers £thousands!

[Simon Kirby]

Well, I applaud Cllr David Allen's honest response, and I think he's been quite courageous in telling the Newbury tax-paying public just before an election that they're all too slow-witted to understand the conclusion of a hydrogeological report. I think Cllr Allen's wrong though and I think he's mistaking the technical expertise required to compile a hydrogeological report with the basic command of English necessary to understand what the conclusion says.

Cllr Allen also says that the Council were prevented from disclosing the hydrogeological reports by a confidentiality agreement. I don't believe that to be true. What NTC purport to be a confidentiality agreement can't possibly apply to the first report because that was produced without any Costain data and the "confidentiality agreement" came later (how much later we don't know because NTC redacted the date on the e-mail.

The reason the Information Commissioner did not order disclosure of the hydrogeological reports is not because of any "confidentiality agreement" which the IC said he was inclined to disregard because the reports were information on emissions and as such disclosure couldn't be prevented by a confidentiality agreement, the IC allowed NTC to keep the reports secret because NTC asserted legal professional privilege in the reports. This was entirely NTC's choice and nothing whatsoever to do with any confidentiality agreement. As it is the applicability of legal professional privilege has been challenged and the Information Tribunal is to decide on the matter reasonably shortly.

I stand by my criticism then. The cracks debacle has cost the Newbury tax-payer a lot of money in legal fees which appears to be out of all proportion to any damage to the park, and the Town Council have suppressed the disclosure of the reports so that the tax-paying public have no objective evidence with which to challenge NTC on the merits of pursuing the dispute. Furthermore the Council has failed to claim on its legal expenses insurance which has lost the tax-payer maybe £100k, and more disturbingly has seen the Council cover-up that failing which only became public when the former Deputy Leader of the Council, Ruwan Uduwerage-Perera blew the whistle - a principled decision for which he was victimised by his own party.

I'm open to the possibility that's I'm entirely wrong about all this, but the antagonism with which NTC treat criticism and the effort they make to discourage oversight of their activities by the tax-paying public create the perfect conditions for chaotic public administration.

[Andy Capp]

I hope to read as much in the next edition? I to think the NDA is cobblers, based on what I have read. However, if what you say about the alleged agreement is true, you are effectively saying that Mr Allen is tabling an untruth or possibly lying by omission, or perhaps he is just misguided?

As you imply, it seems clear by the evidence that NTC are seeking to keep the information secret.

[Cognosco]

I hope to read as much in the next edition? I to think the NDA is cobblers, based on what I have read. However, if what you say about the alleged agreement is true, you are effectively saying that Mr Allen is tabling an untruth or possibly lying by omission, or perhaps he is just misguided?

As you imply, it seems clear by the evidence that NTC are seeking to keep the information secret.

At least for another few weeks they hope...........after the election then it won't matter it will be all hands to the pump to put a good spin on it........then back to business as usual all is forgiven and the few carry on in the best usual Newbury tradition.......same as it ever was!

[CharlieF]

Well, I applaud Cllr David Allen's honest response, and I think he's been quite courageous in telling the Newbury tax-paying public just before an election that they're all too slow-witted to understand the conclusion of a hydrogeological report. I think Cllr Allen's wrong though and I think he's mistaking the technical expertise required to compile a hydrogeological report with the basic command of English necessary to understand what the conclusion says.

Cllr Allen also says that the Council were prevented from disclosing the hydrogeological reports by a confidentiality agreement. I don't believe that to be true. What NTC purport to be a confidentiality agreement can't possibly apply to the first report because that was produced without any Costain data and the "confidentiality agreement" came later (how much later we don't know because NTC redacted the date on the e-mail.

The reason the Information Commissioner did not order disclosure of the hydrogeological reports is not because of any "confidentiality agreement" which the IC said he was inclined to disregard because the reports were information on emissions and as such disclosure couldn't be prevented by a confidentiality agreement, the IC allowed NTC to keep the reports secret because NTC asserted legal professional privilege in the reports. This was entirely NTC's choice and nothing whatsoever to do with any confidentiality agreement. As it is the applicability of legal professional privilege has been challenged and the Information Tribunal is to decide on the matter reasonably shortly.

I stand by my criticism then. The cracks debacle has cost the Newbury tax-payer a lot of money in legal fees which appears to be out of all proportion to any damage to the park, and the Town Council have suppressed the disclosure of the reports so that the tax-paying public have no objective evidence with which to challenge NTC on the merits of pursuing the dispute. Furthermore the Council has failed to claim on its legal expenses insurance which has lost the tax-payer maybe £100k, and more disturbingly has seen the Council cover-up that failing which only became public when the former Deputy Leader of the Council, Ruwan Uduwerage-Perera blew the whistle - a principled decision for which he was victimised by his own party.

I'm open to the possibility that's I'm entirely wrong about all this, but the antagonism with which NTC treat criticism and the effort they make to discourage oversight of their activities by the tax-paying public create the perfect conditions for chaotic public administration.

I do hope you sent this to the letters page, Simon. The NWN seems quite equal to lifting your comments from Facebook but I don't think it occurs to them to look at their own forum.

[Simon Kirby]

I do hope you sent this to the letters page, Simon. The NWN seems quite equal to lifting your comments from Facebook but I don't think it occurs to them to look at their own forum.

I sent a variation on the theme, we'll see tomorrow if it gets published:

Dear Sir

Cllr Allen is wrong to suppose that the Newbury tax-payer is incapable of understanding the conclusion of a hydrogeological report, and frankly it's insulting to our intelligence to be told that we're just too dim to be trusted with the information. It was tax-payer's money that paid for the reports, and for four and a half years it's been tax-payer's money that's paid the solicitors' bills. Suppressing the reports simply denies us the opportunity to make informed comment on the Council's handling of this interminable "Park Gate" dispute.

And the reports are certainly being suppressed. The first report was authored before Costain were approached for additional data so the idea that Costain can prevent the Town Council from disclosing that first report is bogus. Cllr Allen is right that there is a "confidentiality agreement", but that's trumped by the public's right to the reports under the Environmental Information Regulations, and the Town Council had to assert legal professional privilege in the reports to prevent the Information Commissioner from ordering their disclosure (Google the case reference FS50531987 - and see how the Council tried to suppress the "confidentiality agreement").

That was the Council's choice to assert privilege, and it's disingenuous for the Councillor to suggest that Costain forced their hand. Anyhow, the Information Commissioner's decision is currently under review by the Information Tribunal so the hydrogeological reports may yet be made public.

I'm open to the possibility that the hot summer of 2010 wasn't entirely to blame for the park cracks, but suppressing the hydrogeological reports frustrated any public oversight of the administration of this dispute, and that's the issue here, and it's compounded by the Councillor's hostile response to its criticism. Local government, most especially at the parish level, should be open and accessible, and of the numerous problems at the Town Council right now there's not one which wouldn't be resolved by playing less party politics and showing a little humility towards the tax-paying public.

Simon Kirby
Wash Common

[Dodgys smarter b...]

What he said.

[HJD]

What he said.

It must have got filed in the OUT tray !!

[motormad]

I smell an uprising.

I live in Wash Common now too Simon. It's nice up here. LOL.

[Exhausted]

Are you vexatious on the NWN letters pages as it didn't get into print. Selective letter publishing perhaps. Could have been lost in the post so we may have to wait until next week.

[blackdog]

There is no chance of getting a letter in the paper if it doesn't get to them by a Tuesday at the latest - we will have to wait for next week to see if his letter makes the cut.

[On the edge]

We'll have to wait 'till next week then. There was a really good crop of letters this week, so it's highly likely to be a hold over. Actually, I hope it's a good omen and they have enough material to keep it up. Readers letters make a local paper. Dare we hope Winchcombe comes back too?

[Andy Capp]

I was disappointed not to see Simon's letter, although I did feel that Simon went a little too close to the knuckle with his language for it to be palatable for the letters page.

[Simon Kirby]

I smell an uprising.

I live in Wash Common now too Simon. It's nice up here. LOL.

Hey, go you! And other than allotment nazis it really is a good place to live.

[Simon Kirby]

There is no chance of getting a letter in the paper if it doesn't get to them by a Tuesday at the latest - we will have to wait for next week to see if his letter makes the cut.

Sent Monday night. The story's not over though...

[Andy Capp]

This would have been my edit:


Dear Sir

I disagree with Cllr Allen that the Newbury tax-payer is incapable of understanding the conclusion of a hydrogeological report, and is not a good reason in my view, not to publish. It was tax-payer's money that paid for the reports, and for four and a half years it's been tax-payer's money that's paid the solicitors' bills. Not releasing these reports simply denies us the opportunity to make informed comment on the Council's handling of this dispute.

I understand that the first report was authored before Costain were approached for additional data so I don't understand why we cannot see that report. How can Costain have any control over that report? I agree with Cllr Allen there is a "confidentiality agreement", but the public has a right to the reports under the Environmental Information Regulations which I believe has greater weight than the "confidentiality agreement". I also understand that the Town Council had to assert legal professional privilege in the reports to prevent the Information Commissioner from ordering their disclosure (Google the case reference FS50531987 - and see how the Council tried to suppress the "confidentiality agreement").

If it was the Council's choice to assert privilege, it seems disingenuous to me to suggest that the "confidentiality agreement" with Costain is the reason for non disclosure. Anyhow, the Information Commissioner's decision is currently under review by the Information Tribunal so hopefully the hydrogeological reports may yet be made public.

I'm open to the possibility that the hot summer of 2010 wasn't entirely to blame for the park cracks, but not publishing the hydrogeological reports frustrate any public oversight of the administration of this dispute, and that's my issue here. Local government, most especially at the parish level, should be open and accessible.

Andy Capp


E&OE