Does anyone know what happened to the cracks survey in Victoria Park? Surely if something was found, the council would have slapped in a bill for compensation by now?

It seems they are hopping it will go away.  Very suspicious.

It's very odd. How much did the study cost in the end?

They couldn't comment against SLI and their chums could they?

Quoted from MontyP

They couldn't comment against SLI and their chums could they?

?  They were pretty outspoken about SLI until they got the initial feeback on the survey.  Given that everyone who knows has stopped talking about it, the only logical conclusion we can make is that the survey has not provided sufficient evidence to support NTC's claim against SLI.

We shall see. Either way, let's see the results already.

Quoted from blackdog

?  They were pretty outspoken about SLI until they got the initial feeback on the survey.  Given that everyone who knows has stopped talking about it, the only logical conclusion we can make is that the survey has not provided sufficient evidence to support NTC's claim against SLI.

That's a bit off, being outspoken about SLI, after all they have done for Newbury. They gave us a new shopping center you know.
I would have thought they would toe the WBC line and fall over backwards to help such a wonderful organisation? They gave us a new shopping centre you know.
Just because the taxpayer has paid for the survey it doesn't mean that it has to be published you know? They gave us a new shopping centre you know.
What does it matter abourta bit of compensation anyway. Taxpayers money will pay for the repairs. They gave us a new shopping centre you know.

Oh that was very kind of them to give you a new shopping center. Did you not have to pay anything for it then. No according to the local councils.
Only half of Newbury was given to them to build it on, they have shares in all the car park takings for the next five thousand years or something minor like that and they closed one of the only bridges over the Kennet and we are still trying to find out what else but the council only insist on saying...They gave us a new shopping center you know!!!!

Quoted from richard.garvie

We shall see. Either way, let's see the results already.

Probably already redacted before it goes into storage for the next 100 years.  

My view is that it is more likely due to Parkway than not if we hear nothing.

Quoted from Greenham Common

My view is that it is more likely due to Parkway than not if we hear nothing.

But then wouldn't NTC have a case against SLI?

No, because they endorsed the development.  They would culpable,

Quoted from Greenham Common

No, because they endorsed the development.  They would culpable,

Did they?

I would have thought the longer we hear nothing, the more likely the cause of problem was the driest Spring for 80 years.

Quoted from Greenham Common

No, because they endorsed the development.  They would culpable,

No they wouldn't - they didn't endorse the damage to the bowling green, paths etc.

Just because you support a building application (say for a neighbour's extension) it doesn't mean you are endorsing the methodology used by his builder to erect it - if that methodology caused damage to your property your neighbour and his builder would be liable.

If the Parkway crane had collapsed over the road and into the park (instead of landing on SLU property) the councils (WBC and NTC) could have expected SLI to sort out any damage. The problem is that the damage is not so self-evidently caused by Costain's activities - it is debatable whether it was the pumping or the weather that caused the damage (you can't argue about a tower crane lying across a road).  

In reality it was probably a combination of the two - if it had rained more or if the pumping had not been going on the damage may well not have happened.

Quoted from user23.3

Did they?

I would have thought the longer we hear nothing, the more likely the cause of problem was the driest Spring for 80 years.

More likely a cover up - of course a number of councillors are also on WBC.

Did the park get cracks like that 80 or so years ago? I am sure it would have been in the NWN, and if WBC/SLI thought it to be the case would have found the evidence!

Quoted from Greenham Common

It seems they are hopping it will go away.

Presumably because they don't have  a leg to stand on.

Quoted from user23.3

Did they?

I would have thought the longer we hear nothing, the more likely the cause of problem was the driest Spring for 80 years.

So there you have it from the main council spokesperson!

If that were the case then they would have published by now.

Just because the taxpayers paid for the survey it doesn't automatically follow that the taxpayers should see it.

If it is down to SLI then nothing will be done. They gave us a new shopping center you know!

Quoted from blackdog

No they wouldn't - they didn't endorse the damage to the bowling green, paths etc.

Just because you support a building application (say for a neighbour's extension) it doesn't mean you are endorsing the methodology used by his builder to erect it - if that methodology caused damage to your property your neighbour and his builder would be liable.

If the Parkway crane had collapsed over the road and into the park (instead of landing on SLU property) the councils (WBC and NTC) could have expected SLI to sort out any damage. The problem is that the damage is not so self-evidently caused by Costain's activities - it is debatable whether it was the pumping or the weather that caused the damage (you can't argue about a tower crane lying across a road).  

In reality it was probably a combination of the two - if it had rained more or if the pumping had not been going on the damage may well not have happened.

I disagree.  NTC are custodians of our town.  They endorsed the build so must take some of the blame if it were to have a negative impact on the environment.

Can you think of any good reason why the report hasn't been published?  I can't.

I'm afraid that I don't go for the driest Spring get out clause. Victoria park was always known as the Marsh. That's because that is exactly what it was. Over the years the underlying water has been drained, firstly by the drainage works implemented when the park was created, then the diversion of several small streams that used to go around the exterior of the park and quite a few tributeries being diverted. So, a dry Spring may have helped a little, but do we remember the very dry summers when water was rationed and hosepipes banned, so much so in one year the water board were going around looking for people wasting water. The  grass died and the parks looked like cornfields. Did the park sink and crack up, no it didn't.
Maybe the circumstances mentioned above had some factor but who in their right mind can believe that the amount of water through two twelve inch pipes into the Kennet being pumped 24/7 didn't have a major effect. I'm not a scientist but on probability, the root cause is obvious.

The burden of proof is on the council and I'm afraid that the cost to determine this in the courts would be, as SLI certainly know, outside the pocket of NTC. So what can be done. The easy way out would be an agreement between the two parties not to apportion blame however but that SLI as a gesture of goodwill, totally unrelated to compensation bung a bit more cash than that they have paid to WBC in S106 to NTC to enhance the park. That would work to everybodies benefit including theirs.

"The easy way out would be an agreement between the two parties not to apportion blame however but that SLI as a gesture of goodwill, totally unrelated to compensation bung a bit more cash than that they have paid to WBC in S106 to NTC to enhance the park. That would work to everybodies benefit including theirs".

Far too sensible a suggestion! Besides SLI would probably want a larger share of the car park takings or something similar no doubt?  

Quoted from Greenham Common

NTC are custodians of our town.  They endorsed the build so must take some of the blame if it were to have a negative impact on the environment.

Can you think of any good reason why the report hasn't been published?  I can't.

They certainly did, so does that make them custodians? On the basis of the number of people who vote for them....NO.

Custodians of our town! Nice one.

I believe NTC are planning to move the main VP gates so it aligns with Park Way (the correct spelling is two words). Wasn't it supposed to be the other way round? Looking back at Griffin's design statement (the one adopted by WBC), it says Park Way's frontage will enhance the park. Now the park will be reconfigured to enhance Park Way?

The thing is there are plenty of residents and business owners who want to see this report before they go suing SLI or another party. If this delay is face-saving, then NTC have let these people down. I dearly hope NTC isn't negotiating on their behalf.

Quoted from Muddler

...the correct spelling is two words...

The road is Park Way. The shopping development is Parkway.

Quoted from Greenham Common

I disagree.  NTC are custodians of our town.  They endorsed the build so must take some of the blame if it were to have a negative impact on the environment.

We might decide to blame them and vote for someone else next time - but they have no liability under law for damages caused by a developer with whom they have no contractual ties.

I suppose you think that everyone else who supported the Parkway development is also to blame? Right down to the individuals who supported the various planning applications or wrote a letter to the NWN?   Perhaps NTC should sue User for compensation?

Quoted from Greenham Common

Can you think of any good reason why the report hasn't been published?  I can't.

Yes - here are two:
1    It doesn't say what NTC want it to say - ie 'it was the weather chaps, tough cheese'. In this case NTC are embarassed and are hoping it will all be forgotten (not exactly a good reason unless you are part of NTC).
2    It apportions blame to both Costain and the weather and NTC are negotiating the amount of compensation with Costain and don't want the negotiations messed up by the likes of us calling for heads to roll.  Which could be very good reason.

Quoted from blackdog

We might decide to blame them and vote for someone else next time - but they have no liability under law for damages caused by a developer with whom they have no contractual ties.

I never said anything about liability.  They endorsed something so must share 'blame' in its impact.  They must have been aware of the suitability concerns of the area. they were voiced enough.

Quoted from blackdog

I suppose you think that everyone else who supported the Parkway development is also to blame? Right down to the individuals who supported the various planning applications or wrote a letter to the NWN?   Perhaps NTC should sue User for compensation?

Like I said, while they cannot be liable; there is no legal casae to answer, they all share in the 'blame' for this.  If people didn't want it, it wouldn't have been built.

Quoted from blackdog

Yes - here are two:
1    It doesn't say what NTC want it to say - ie 'it was the weather chaps, tough cheese'. In this case NTC are embarassed and are hoping it will all be forgotten (not exactly a good reason unless you are part of NTC).

I don't buy it.  They dutifully investigated the problem, and if it comes back that is was the weather, then so be it.  I see no reason to be 'embarrassed'.

Quoted from blackdog

2    It apportions blame to both Costain and the weather and NTC are negotiating the amount of compensation with Costain and don't want the negotiations messed up by the likes of us calling for heads to roll.  Which could be very good reason.

This is more likely, but is not a good reason as, meanwhile; speculation mounts.  I suspect they are waiting for Parkway to become a 'roaring success' so that people will just think so-what, the damage to the park and people's homes(?), etc, was worth it.

Quoted from Greenham Common

  They endorsed something so must share 'blame' in its impact.  They must have been aware of the suitability concerns of the area. they were voiced enough.

I don't think that it is the duty of NTC or the planning department of WBC to prevent a developer building on a location if it fits the rules for such a development. The fact that they went along with it as a town council does not mean that if it all goes pear shaped they are to blame. In the case of the WBC planning department, once again, so long as the development meets the structural rules and fits with the local plans for the environmental design, they have done their job.

Quoted from Greenham Common

.......  If people didn't want it, it wouldn't have been built.

Really, I don't think that fits with the WBC rules of engagement at all. I may be wrong but I'm sure we can rely on User to put us right.

Quoted from brian

I don't think that it is the duty of NTC or the planning department of WBC to prevent a developer building on a location if it fits the rules for such a development. The fact that they went along with it as a town council does not mean that if it all goes pear shaped they are to blame. In the case of the WBC planning department, once again, so long as the development meets the structural rules and fits with the local plans for the environmental design, they have done their job.

I understand that this development breached planning guidelines and resulted in a number of business being forcibly removed and listed buildings being demolished.  It is alleged that it might have had an impact on our park too.  Meanwhile, is it not these councils that refuse planning for  the odd shop's 'inappropriate' signage?

Of course the councils are culpable.  And even if they are not, I blame them anyway come election time - for what t is worth.

WTC are certainly culpable for Parkway - SLI were chosen by them to build, according to their design brief, largely on their land (sold for £1). As has been noted many listed buidlings were demolished and others partly demolished, the height of the development contravened local guidelines, and the whole thing was contrary to WBC's own commitment in their 'Vision 2025' that development would be 'within scale' of our old market town.

Without WBC pushing for it Parkway would not have been built.  I guess you could argue that damage to the park (owned by WBC) was self-inflicted.

However, NTC lease the park (or most of it) and should not be the ones footing the repair bill if the Parkway pumping caused it just because they decided the plans were okay.

Quoted from blackdog

However, NTC lease the park (or most of it) and should not be the ones footing the repair bill if the Parkway pumping caused it just because they decided the plans were okay.

I never meant they should, but they endorsed the project; as in didn't raise objections.  In my view as voter, so to speak, they are culpable.

Quoted from blackdog

However, NTC lease the park (or most of it) and should not be the ones footing the repair bill if the Parkway pumping caused it just because they decided the plans were okay.

I think the difficulty will be proving who has the ultimate responsibility for the damage. If there is any doubt, especially after a dry spring for which they, SLI, could claim natural causes, then we're up the creek without a paddle. You and I both know that water extraction was excessive but an independent body might rule that there was reasonable doubt.

I think there is something up.  They could at least provide an interim report.  At the end of the day, this is about whether SLI are liable or not.  This I believe is the reason for the delays.  Knowing how Building Control work, I wonder if there is any time period involved to effect remedial work.

Quoted from Greenham Common

I think there is something up.  They could at least provide an interim report.  At the end of the day, this is about whether SLI are liable or not.  This I believe is the reason for the delays.  Knowing how Building Control work, I wonder if there is any time period involved to effect remedial work.

As far as the park is concerened, the natural rewatering of the underlying soils will probably resolve the grass areas, the paths may possibly need a bit of excavating and re-tarmacing but not much more than fair wear and tear. The expensive bit might be if there are any buildings that have slipped. This would need underpinning to put right but that would usually be covered by the building owners insurance. So, all in all has anybody actually put a figure on what compensation NTC might be hoping for. Probably less than it would cost to go to court and fight a dodgy case. Theres always a time to know when to stop and perhaps the council realise that they have reached that point but don't know how to tell us.

If the report confirmed a dry winter and spring was the most likely cause of the problem, what would be the hold-up in releasing that opinion, even if only as a 'without prejudice' interim report?  The delay is ominous.

Well, they've made their "Shut up" statement I see. All we can do is wait.

Quoted from brian

Well, they've made their "Shut up" statement I see. All we can do is wait.

This is the standard of our local councils I'm afraid? Treat the taxpayers as mushrooms?  

Hmmm on 'Jack O'Newbury's House' right next to the Parkway development!

Quoted from blackdog

WTC are certainly culpable for Parkway - SLI were chosen by them to build, according to their design brief, largely on their land (sold for £1). As has been noted many listed buidlings were demolished and others partly demolished, the height of the development contravened local guidelines, and the whole thing was contrary to WBC's own commitment in their 'Vision 2025' that development would be 'within scale' of our old market town.

Without WBC pushing for it Parkway would not have been built.  I guess you could argue that damage to the park (owned by WBC) was self-inflicted.

However, NTC lease the park (or most of it) and should not be the ones footing the repair bill if the Parkway pumping caused it just because they decided the plans were okay.

As West Berks are the ultimate landowner, should it not be they who foot the bill for the studies and repairs?

Quoted from Marcsie

Hmmm on 'Jack O'Newbury's House' right next to the Parkway development!

That looks like a fairly recent strain gauge bonded either side of the crack. There is a bit of a problem with the brickwork in that at some time, the building appears to have been repointed. Because of the age, it should have been a lime mortar mix which will allow movement without the bricks cracking. Looking at that photograph, I would suspect a cement joint has been made. That will cause the bricks to give way. So, where was English heritage when that was done.

Quoted from brian

That looks like a fairly recent strain gauge bonded either side of the crack. There is a bit of a problem with the brickwork in that at some time, the building appears to have been repointed. Because of the age, it should have been a lime mortar mix which will allow movement without the bricks cracking. Looking at that photograph, I would suspect a cement joint has been made. That will cause the bricks to give way. So, where was English heritage when that was done.

It is hard to tell when the work was done - perhaps English Heritage were still thinking about being invented?  Not that English Heritage are that involved today, it is WBC's duty to ensure that work carried out on listed buildings is acceptable. That said you shouldn't get this sort of movement on a timber frame house (the bricks are just there to fill in the gaps between the beams) - is this on the Tudor bit at the front or the later buildings at the back?  Not that it matters in terms of planning consents.

I would also like to see the listed building consent that allowed them to screw those dodgy lights along the building.

Quoted from blackdog

...... That said you shouldn't get this sort of movement on a timber frame house (the bricks are just there to fill in the gaps between the beams) -

.

Very true, but when these old boys built these houses, they expected the frame to move and that is why they used lime mortar. The properties  of lime mortar and that is what was used right up until the twenties, is that the mortar does not set in a chemical way like cement and remains flexible for decades. If the joint slips, then it heals with the oxygen in the air and doesn't normally stress the bricks. That's why the pre 1920 houses rarely have footings and rely on a couple of rows of headers straight on top of the dirt. As soon as the quick chemical setting cement came along, then houses needed huge concrete footings to prevent even minor movement.