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

[Simon Kirby]

I suppose that 'most likely' isn't a strong enough position to go to court. I presume therefore, the only rational reason I can think of to withhold the document is that it was seen as a bargaining tool with Costain, OR West Berkshire Council's Environmental Agency asked the council if they would not publish, as it were.

It's a good point. I would suggest that, given the Council has had the reports since 2012, and given that they haven't yet resolved the dispute, that the Council are advised that it is not string enough to go to court.

There's also the problem that the reports are almost certainly inadmissible as evidence.

If the Town Council have managed the dispute with the same competence with which they handled the request for the reports then we have no chance of a successful conclusion to this dispute. There needs to be a thorough review of who got what wrong, and then changes need to be made to the administration.

I read in the paper that Swift-Hooks says something about the reason the Council did not want to publish the reports was because it would give Costain a strategic advantage - so he's admitting that it was always the Councils choice to refuse to disclose the reports, and that the Council have been lying to the public for four years about the reason for not disclosing the reports? It really is contemptible. I would imagine that the cost of the legal fees for just the reports dispute would have paid for the rebuilding of the Parkway wall.

[Lolly]

On topic: I suppose that 'most likely' isn't a strong enough position to go to court. I presume therefore, the only rational reason I can think of to withhold the document is that it was seen as a bargaining tool with Costain, OR West Berkshire Council's Environmental Agency asked the council if they would not publish, as it were.

Anybody feeling "vexatious" enough to put in an FOI to WBC?

I'd also like to add my congratulations to Ote (Mark) and Simon for persevering with this. Even if they aren't elected (and I really hope they are) I think the new Newbury Council will have no choice but to wake up to the fact that FOI exists and is a regulatory requirement.

[On the edge]

On topic: I suppose that 'most likely' isn't a strong enough position to go to court. I presume therefore, the only rational reason I can think of to withhold the document is that it was seen as a bargaining tool with Costain, OR West Berkshire Council's Environmental Agency asked the council if they would not publish, as it were.

One of the concerns I have is that the comments eminating from the Council suggest they have decided Costain are wholly to blame. As you've often said, there are other potential parties, such as WBC and perhaps the Environment Agency and indeed God, for the glorious hot weather that particular year. It seems to demonstrate the usual NTC - Fire, Aim, Ready approach.

[On the edge]

Anybody feeling "vexatious" enough to put in an FOI to WBC?

I'd also like to add my congratulations to Ote (Mark) and Simon for persevering with this. Even if they aren't elected (and I really hope they are) I think the new Newbury Council will have no choice but to wake up to the fact that FOI exists and is a regulatory requirement.

Thanks for that! I'd like to think that the new Council will also fully understand and appreciate the basic points of British justice.

[Cognosco]

Thanks for that! I'd like to think that the new Council will also fully understand and appreciate the basic points of British justice.

Only if none of them are part of "The Newbury Club" of course!

[Simon Kirby]

Anybody feeling "vexatious" enough to put in an FOI to WBC?

I'd also like to add my congratulations to Ote (Mark) and Simon for persevering with this. Even if they aren't elected (and I really hope they are) I think the new Newbury Council will have no choice but to wake up to the fact that FOI exists and is a regulatory requirement.

Thank you, and well said.

[Andy Capp]

One of the concerns I have is that the comments eminating from the Council suggest they have decided Costain are wholly to blame. As you've often said, there are other potential parties, such as WBC and perhaps the Environment Agency and indeed God, for the glorious hot weather that particular year. It seems to demonstrate the usual NTC - Fire, Aim, Ready approach.

So the 'burning' question: who's responsible for the mitigation work that was done? I don't know how it works, but would have Costain submitted their proposal to de-water and by what means? Like going to Building Control and submitting the plan of works, or is it not as defined as that with a de-watering licence? Whose responsible for monitoring water levels during the de-watering? Or is that not the way it is usually done?

[On the edge]

So the 'burning' question: who's responsible for the mitigation work that was done? I don't know how it works, but would have Costain submitted their proposal to de-water and by what means? Like going to Building Control and submitting the plan of works, or is it not as defined as that with a de-watering licence? Whose responsible for monitoring water levels during the de-watering? Or is that not the way it is usually done?

I think that's exactly right. It's likely to be a pretty complex problem and Costain is only one of the parties involved. I don't know how the process works, but I do have a smattering of knowledge about riparian rights etc. and the legal implications of flowing water - which are inevitably complex. For instance, Costain certainly had an agreement to dispose of the water into the canal, so where did it come from? Northbrook is in a culvert by the site, was that pipe broken? And so on and on.

[Andy Capp]

I think that's exactly right. It's likely to be a pretty complex problem and Costain is only one of the parties involved. I don't know how the process works, but I do have a smattering of knowledge about riparian rights etc. and the legal implications of flowing water - which are inevitably complex. For instance, Costain certainly had an agreement to dispose of the water into the canal, so where did it come from? Northbrook is in a culvert by the site, was that pipe broken? And so on and on.

Yes, the more I read the more I am convinced this was a failure of the authorities and we can hardly sue West Berkshire Council. If there was a sudden drop in the water table, then de-watering should have stopped. Or again, is that not the way it works?

[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]

Okay, I'm considering it - and wondering when it was taken?

[Simon Kirby]

Okay, I'm considering it - and wondering when it was taken?

Sorry posted it before I'd finished my thesis...

[Andy Capp]

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.

Perhaps if the Apoliticals get in they could commission a hydrogeographical report?

[MontyPython]

OK lets take a hypothetical case.

I want to de-water my land to build an extension or house. I get the necessary permissions from the EA and WBC.

Just after I have finished my neighbour's house suffer subsidence. What will they / their insurance company do? Take me (or my insurance company) to court or the EA or WBC?

Discuss!

[Andy Capp]

I guess insurance covers it assuming all work was done according to plan.

[On the edge]

I guess insurance covers it assuming all work was done according to plan.

....and now we are back to the other question they don't like mentioned!

[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?

[Cognosco]

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?

I would imagine that the owners of Victoria Terraces would have consulted their insurance companies and this would be what all parties involved would be afraid of?
I see in the media that Victoria Terraces were mentioned but to what extent of damage was caused I am not clear on?

The insurance companies will of course be looking to claim any insurance monies paid out to owners from some other party if at all possible, knowing how they work, but again it will depend on how much they were out of pocket of course.
Is it NTC, WBC, EA, Costains or others?

Then of course we have the NTC looking like numpties again for not claiming on their insurance for legal costs.

All in all it would appear that Petra is wrong, yet again, in declaring we should leave it all to the professionals as us plebs are not able to understand technical discussions. It would appear that the plebs may indeed have a full understanding, when freely and openly given all the facts, perhaps even better than elected and professional and highly paid individuals and companies?

[Exhausted]

I believe that the barometer for the whole process of park sinkage must be the sump or well used by the bowling green and the bowling green itself. The sump is a concrete lined well, approximately 6 metres deep. Despite all the hot summers and other weather conditions, the water level normally stands at about 3m down. It went dry, exposing the base level which is a ground base in 2010, after the pumping began. Excavating a further 1m failed to provide natural water. This means that for a period, the level of water bearing gravel below the surface fell by at least 3m. It was at this time the bowling rink sank making it unplayable. The interesting point here is that Costain provided a water source to the bowling club to mitigate their loss of water. I wonder why they did this when they were not responsible.
We do need to look at what else was going on in the development and the park itself. The initial problem as I see it is that the wells built around the development inside and outside the piled or bunded area which was the boundary of what is now the car park, had to serve two purposes. Firstly to remove excess groundwater from the hole in the ground and secondly to take water back in to recharge bore on the exterior. Pumping it over the wall in real terms. As it happens, the recharge only took place on the Western, Northern and Southern sides. This ensured that these three sides were kept watered and thus there was no sinking of buildings on those three sides, Northbrook Street, The Marks & Spencer/Camp Hopson area and that to the north of Park Lane and possibly the old cinema area. The remainder of the water was pumped 24/7 into the Kennet with little chance of that water returning to the park. There was no recharge of water into the East of the development, the sacrifice being Victoria Park. This plan must have been approved by the environment agency who are supposedly the experts in this area.
One other area of concern which does have a bearing is that the natural flow of underground water in the gravel bed of the Kennet valley is towards the East. The flow after pumping and water abstraction started was reversed and flowed in the western area of the park toward the west. This water flow is normally slow and was not sufficient to prevent the huge depression on that side of the park.
There has been some discussion about peat shrinkage and its failure to resize if once drained of water. I believe that there should be some further investigation into this as the area is mainly alluvial soil and is identified as pseudo peat up to 1.5 – 2m thick but only in certain areas and it is not made clear, to my mind, that the water drain was natural due to lack of rain and evaporation, or what is more likely, the water level in the gravel which is normally water bearing, fell to such a level that the water in this peat was drained downwards.
Once again, one has to ask what is to be done now. Costain appear to be refusing to accept any liability as are Standard Life so it seems that it will fall back on the ratepayers to foot the bill. What seems a little odd is that there doesn't seem to be an insurer for the Town Council who lease the park or in fact the owner West Berks Council. What happened with both WBC building control and of course the Environment Agency while all this was being planned and actioned.

[On the edge]

So in view of all that it's hardly surprising Costain should simply just accept liability; if it was your firm, woukd you? Given the amount our Council has expended would probably have restored the damage several times over, it ain't Costain who've taken us for mugs. The only winners are the lawyers.