Latest on the cracks snafu.

£85,000 spent, only £6,000 of which is on repairs, and the council only have a contingency of £10,000 for all further repairs.

"Mr Swift-Hook said that was still not clear whether the hydrogeological report or any of the other investigations will ever be made public."

This nonsense has gone on long enough, it's time to publish the reports. In a recent Freedom of Information request the Council would not even disclose the confidentiality agreement which they claim prevents them from disclosing the reports. The agreement itself can't possibly be classified - the Council have already told us what it is supposed to say. The only reason I can imagine for the Council withholding the confidentiality agreement is that it doesn't say what they claim, or it simply doesn't exist. Whether or not the council have mismanaged the cracks debacle, their commitment to open and accountable government is a miserable failure, and that is always a bad sign.

I think we'd be justified in assuming that the report does not support the council's case. After all, if it did, they'd publish and be confident of winning any action they chose to commence. This is a farce, it would be very amusing if we were we not paying so much.

Yes OtE, I agree. As the FoI request details, the story about the confidentiality agreement came out a very long time after the reports were written and it's implausible that the council had this confidentiality agreement and just didn't mention it when the failure to publish the reports was causing such controversy. It does point to the reports not supporting the council's case, and it's just this kind of mismanagement that open government is supposed to prevent.

Has anyone tried an FOI request on the lines of 'does the hydrological report support the council's case for compensation' as opposed to 'please let me have a copy of the report'?

A well argued case but still non answers supplied by our, experts at giving non answer, council.
As suspected by many others the Council are in the smelly stuff and are now just praying it will all go quietly away, as usual, and keeping stum.
I am only surprised they did not answer No No No Yes!
I think this just confirms that there is something rotten in the Borough of Newbury?

What don't get if this version is correct, is why didn't the council, realising they had weak evidence, just not say so? They could have easily just said 'we have spent £x and the evidence we have is not strong enough to merit any more expense, please direct all enquiries to WBC'.

What I don't understand is how the Town Council can refuse the confidentiality agreement saying that it too was provided in confidence.

"Point 6 - The confidentially requirement was received from the third party
but we are withholding since we consider that the exemption under the
Freedom of Information Act (2000) Section 41 – Information provided in confidence" - applies to it.

Oh dear I feel another couple of Vexatious Complainant notices are about to be issued?

Lolly please don't expect any replies as NTC Don't do replies; at least not any that anyone can understand!

I just don't understand why they won't just throw their hands up and admit we have gaffed again........ or is there an election over the horizon?

I have a feeling that Mark Knight is dancing dangerously close to you know what!

I hope he is not an allotment tenant?

FoI gives you a right (subject to some exceptions) to "information", and that includes documents and other recorded data, but that information has to already exist. The council will of course answer "yes" to the question you pose, and if they're right then fine, what what if they are mistaken or lying. It is necessary to put into the public domain all the information to allow the public to engage meaningfully with this issue and decide for themselves.

I know, it's absurd. It's necessary to see the agreement now just to understand why the council don't want to disclose it. The most obvious reason is that they have something to hide, but it's also entirely possible that they simply don't believe that their parishioners should be so presumptuous as to question their authority.

It's entirely possible that the council's actions are completely supported by the evidence and that the decision to withhold the reports is just irrational. It's also possible that from the first report it was clear that there wasn't the necessary evidence to support their position but that through some irrational fear of failure they felt unable to face that reality and so just ploughed on, and the further on they went the more they had to hide, and the more they had to hide the further on they had to go. We need to see the reports to be able to decide for ourselves which it is.

For the Council. This looks like a catch 22 situation. If they win, their damages are highly likely to be far less than the cost of restoring Victoria Park, no matter what larding is included in the costs - you never get all your legal fees back. All pretty pointless really. Let's face it, had it been published at the time, hidden away on their web site, I suspect very few of us would have bothered to read it. All this from the party of 'open government'!!!

Well being banned from using other Council facilities might mean an allotment would be a suitable final resting place...!

Or more likely they have been advised by a legal adviser not to.

What I don't understand is why this isn't for WBC? What are they doing allowing a tin pot council take on the big boys? Come to think of it, didn't someone from WBC say they would help NTC expedite the conclusion?

Again, hiding the report could well suggest that WBC actually DID give advice, which wasn't taken! The trouble here being that the outcome is not quite so obvious as the armchair pundits suspected. Sadly, not publishing means it that it looks as if the report was commissioned simply to satisfy the vanity of the Town Council.

Can confidentiality agreements be challenged when they concern a public body?

Yes. In practice, there are very few real reasons why a public authority could legitimately sign a confidentiality agreement. So the public interest test would be applied when challenged. In this case, what purpose can the confidentiality agreement actually serve?

My guess then is that the developer's report was only going to be handed over if the council would sign an agreement, or by court order. What does surprises me is that something like that report isn't with Building Control (or whoever) anyway! I can't see this as NTC's battle to fight.

I have to agree with this. The development was approved by WBC, they have all the trained staff, engineers and building surveyors so must carry some if not all the responsibility for the way the buildings were erected and for ensuring that the regulations have been adhered to. So, why has this been left to a group of amateurs to resolve. WBC fell over backwards to accommodate everything that Standard Life and their developer wanted even allowing major changes so that they could squeeze in a further outlet, John Lewis. Some body, either WBC or Thames Water allowed the extraction of water and the construction of the pipelines into the Kennet, where is their participation..
There were so many underhand deals perpetrated by our council that one has to wonder if it's being kept under wraps to protect themselves from further revelations. Remember Pam letting the cat out of the bag over parking income, the sale of the site for a pound, the way some of the tenants and owners of properties were treated, the nodding through of the major design change for John Lewis, the climb down on the amount of low cost housing and the kickback that WBC had to pay. because of it...... and so on.

There is, of course, a massively unpopular reason. That is, the report suggests that the pumping did not cause, or was only a minor contributor to the problems in Victoria Park.

That doesn't explain WBC reticence, and even if true, what fool, or fools would pursue this: costing the public purse tens of thousands of pounds in legal fees. My guess is that the dewatering has contributed, but the argument rests on how much. If I were the owner and my nose was clean, I'd publish.

Agree but what have the two local authorities got to worry about? Just cast minds back over the last few years? CCTV, Allotmentgate, Parkway, etc. They have not been held to account by ratepayers for all the snafu's therefore they are carrying on in the same tradition.......ignore the outcry it is only a few complainers and nothing will come of the complaints. Unfortunately it always ends up costing ratepayers money. Until the precept payers take it upon themselves to complain in large numbers and vociferously then things will not change?

There is no logical reason that I can see of for withholding the Hydrological Survey?

I seem to remember making that assertion when the cracks first started appearing.


Problem was there were calls for public enquiries, halts to Constain's construction, general wailing & chest beating. Poor old NTC went with the consensus, the fools........

There is no logical reason that I can see of for withholding the Hydrological Survey?

probably not - but it seems there is a good legal one.....

Looking in to it wasn't foolish, keeping going on thin evidence is.

do you know something we don't?

I agree. Looking into it was prudent and entirely appropriate, but if the evidence didn't support further investigations and all those legal expenses then that was money poorly spent. Thing is we're denied the reports and so we can't make an informed opinion, and faced with the council's apparently unsupportable decision not to disclose the reports we're left guessing.

There is s strong possibility of that, but I'm not sure that it has anything to do with this thread.

That's yet to be seen. Actually it looks like the council doesn't have a good case for holding onto the reports, so if the complaint is made the Information Commissioner may end up ordering the Council to disclose the reports, though that process takes a while to run.

I think the Council needs to take some good advice on the requirements of open government and then publish the findings. Doing this would engage with the legitimate concerns of the precept payers, and if they acknowledge any problems the review turns up it will restore some considerable confidence in the council's commitment to open and accountable government. Ignoring the criticism will just compound their problems.

They could engage someone like this to critique their handling of the request.

We asked for action to be taken - and part of that was the survey that , as taxpayers, we have funded. All we have asked for is for either :

1) Action be taken against the developer (as money has been spent on lawyers one must presume there is a case)

or

2) We see the results of the survey we funded (If Costain provided additional info that we did not fund this element may be withheld)

In the case of 2 though we should be told why NTC proceeded on further costly legal expenditure and under whose advice this deemed prudent.

Once one of the above has been provided we will cease to complain on the issue, save that if on being told there was no case, those of us who requested action (myself included) will apologise for the waste of money to those who wanted no survey.

Not really a difficult request even for NTC!

Well put.

You weren't the only one, not by a long chalk. The consensus was theirs!

Are you trying to imply that NTC listens to precept payers.......go and wash your mouth out!

So funny.

You're not even happy when they do.

But they haven't yet that's the problem - but as usual you seem to blind to see it!

So far they have gone to all the expenditure but not given us the results either in compensation from the developer or a published report from the experts that our money has funded.

I would be happy if they did get something correct for a change, even if it was accidentally!
Or even if they apologised for everything they got wrong......but of course they would not do that would they....goes against the training that you council employees receive eh?

seems that they did & wasted a shed load of cash trying to prove that Constain were to blame for some cracks appearing.

It's a bit early to be saying that I think, although the outlook doesn't look good.

Are you really so stupid that you can't understand the point I am making (perhaps you do work for WBC).

All we are asking for is to see the report we have funded (if Costain are not to blame) or action against Costain or compensation if they are.

This is really the issue and the point MontyPython is making: we just don't know. The hydrogeological reports can tell us how likely it was that the dewatering damaged the park, and with the costings report from the quantity surveyor we can decide for ourselves whether the damage justified pursuing the case.

If the Information Commissioner agrees with the council that they couldn't disclose the hydrogeological reports and that it wasn't in the public interest to disclose the costings report then fair enough (though I think the council might have made a better fist of justifying the non-disclosure), but if it turns out that the council were unfairly withholding reports which didn't support the council's pursuing of the case then that'll be a serious matter.

Nah, I'm not that stupid.

NTC should never have bothered getting a report in the first place, as it was bleedin obvious it would be inconclusive.....

that it is confidential is par for the course. I'm surprised you think otherwise.

This week's free paper from the bin in the Library had a front page spade with Councillor Allen saying he was running out of patience with Costain! So are we Councillor Allen, so are we.

He goes on to say the Council has a strong and robust case and every right both morally and legally to issue instructions.

GET ON WITH IT THEN!

As you feel the case is so good, you can't loose. Let's face it, if if was just one of us little people who'd transgressed, I doubt if our local councils would stay proceedings for very long. So what's the problem?

Is there not a planning/building/environment authority who would have these type of reports for public record? Surely it is down to the WBC to ensure the environment is not adversely affected buy new developments? Should they not have monitored the situation? Normally it is the 'landlord' that deals with these sort of things? I understand that NTC are simply the 'management'.

I'm sure there is.

I'm also pretty sure that the plans to build a ruddy great big housing & commercial development were drawn up with full concern for any environmental impact.

What they won't take into account is the effect of the development + a drought.

Your assessment has no foundation (pardon the pun) unless you happen to be a geologist of course. That is to say: so what if there was a drought?

My original point is 'they' are obliged to make an environmental assessment. I would have thought a hydrological report would have formed a part of this, bearing-in-mind the area is notoriously 'wet'.

So what if there was a drought? You get cracks as the ground dries out.

A hydrological report is a certainty - that why the builders knew they'd need to do some dewatering....

Ah but only the hole they dug for the car park needing de-watering Victoria Park and it's environs did not that is the problem isn't it? If you stop the equivalent of what amounts to a river flowing whatever is downstream will dry out and crack up and alter that environment.

Mind you we have the whole £1.00 profit we made from the sale of the land so perhaps we should be doffing our caps to the benevolent Standard Life? Perhaps you should be posting how ungrateful the plebs of Newbury are?

hence the problem of trying to blame Costain for cracks in Victoria Park.