THE PLANNING, TRANSPORTATION AND ESTATES REPORT

 BY THE NETWORK MANAGER  :  A CRITIQUE

INTRODUCTION

The problems of road construction on the Sandy Lane by-pass, upon which my early complaints centred, had been, or should have been, the focus of attention which concerned the first P.T. and E. report by the Head of Structures. During its compilation further serious problems on the adjacent residential estates came to light relating to the PREMATURE construction and occupation of dwellings. To ensure that the Director of P.T. and E. was fully aware of these disturbing developments, I arranged a meeting with him in August 2002 at Carknown Gardens, which was a residential estate, immediately adjacent to Sandy Lane and in the course of construction, where the varied irregularities were apparent. These irregularities were in themselves a striking testament both to the laxity of the Council's inspection and enforcement procedures and to the level of its irresponsibility.

It was self-evident that dwellings were being occupied, BEFORE 4 essential safety requirements had been met. This situation was a blatant contravention of Council policy, which understandably laid down that the occupation of dwellings would NOT be permitted until Part 1 Works had been completed and a Part 1 Certificate had been issued. Otherwise, the Council would be exposing itself, and the taxpayer, to considerable risk in the event of personal injury or accident.

Moreover, the failure of the Council to secure surety BEFORE dwelling construction began, meant that the Council had failed to comply with its statutory [i.e. lawful] duty to protect the owners of dwellings against the possibility of street works charges, should the developer fail to complete the streets. This failure I had established beforehand by my inability to locate any evidence in the Council's records to show that surety, based on an estimate of the cost of the construction of the streets, had been received EITHER in response to an Advanced Payment Code notice OR in association with a Section 38 Road Adoption Agreement. Such a situation was NOT consistent with the lawful duty, which had been imposed on the County Council by the Highways Act, 1980.

I also pointed out to the Director that the situation at Carknown Gardens did not appear to be an isolated occurrence as there were at least five other estates in the Camborne-Redruth area, where similar irregularities were apparent. We agreed that it would be useful if I accompanied the Network Manager, on a visit to each of the six sites so that he could be made fully aware both of my position and the shortcomings on these estates.  Subsequently, this officer produced a report, which failed to present a full and accurate picture of the situation, which I had identified.

THREE MAJOR CRITICISMS OF THIS REPORT.

I] In the background, depicted on Page 1 of the report, my concerns are grossly MISREPRESENTED.

a] FIRSTLY, he alleges that I am concerned with " ROADWORKS commencing with neither a section 38 agreement or APC payments in place."

He should have been in no doubt that my concern, which reflected the law, related to "the BUILDING OF DWELLINGS [not roadworks] before SURETY, in the form of cash deposits or a bond associated with an Advanced Payment Code notice or a Section 38 Road Adoption Agreement, was in place"  

He should have been aware that I was also concerned by the significant facts that the FAILURE to secure that surety BEFORE building works began was a BREACH of the County Council's statutory duty and the FAILURE by a developer or a landowner to provide that surety before building works commenced was a criminal offence.

b] SECONDLY, while my concern with "Houses being occupied on sites before stage 1 works are completed" is mentioned, the fact that this is indicative of a SIGNIFICANT failure to implement Council policy is NOT.

c] THIRDLY, the significance of "where a bond/APC payments are in place are insufficient to cover any remaining works" is NOT emphasised as this MUST mean that the owners of dwellings are NOT protected against the possibility of street works charges, which is the statutory duty of the County Council, as the Highway Authority, to fulfil.

d] FOURTHLY, while the meaning of the "the adequacy of testing" would be clear, the same cannot be said if an adjectival clause is added to this phrase to form the following sentence: "The adequacy of the testing which is used as a part of the pavement design process". In the context of my remarks to both the Director and the Network Manager, I can only assume it refers to the adequacy of inspection procedures though, it might be added that, I was equally concerned with the shortcomings in enforcement procedures.

2] The significant point is how does the Network Manager's report measure up to these aforementioned corrected considerations, each of which will be considered in turn.

a] There has been NO attempt at ANY site to establish whether or not SURETY was in place BEFORE the building of dwellings began.

All one finds is a number of IRRELEVANT comments, such as that "A Section 38 agreement is not in place, however there have been negotiations with the developer about entering into an agreement'', that "A draft Section 38 agreement had been sent to the solicitors acting for the developer (August, 2002) and  that "AN APC notice had been served (August , 2002)." Such comments serve only to CONCEAL rather than to CLARIFY the crucial issue of whether or not a cash deposit or bond had been secured by the County Council BEFORE house construction began.

Even at Carknown Gardens, where I met with the Director of P.T and E. on 21 August 2002, if my memory serves me correctly, no amount of waffle can obscure the fact that at that time, when there was NO record that surety had been secured, dwellings were not only BUILT but OCCUPIED. Shortly after, in my presence, the Network Manager witnessed this scene and yet, obviously having checked the official records, he was UNABLE to establish that surety had been secured. Instead of recording the truth in his report, he chose instead to indulge in the 2nd and 3rd of the irrelevant comments, which have been quoted in the previous paragraph. If this is NOT duplicitous, I would be grateful to know what really is!!

b] Again a FAILURE to establish the facts is clearly apparent.

The occupation of dwellings, according to Council policy, is permitted only IF Part 1 Works have been completed and a Part 1 Certificate has been issued. This indicates that each of following safety requirements has been met and that, in safety terms at least, an acceptable environmental standard has been achieved:

i] carriageways and footways have been completed up to base-course level [i.e.a preliminary layer of tarmacadam covers the basal hard-core].

ii] all gulleys and manholes have been set BELOW and  NOT ABOVE base course level. [i.e. to flooding at times of heavy rain]

iii] street lighting has both been erected and energised.

iv] street name plates have been displayed [i.e. to a ensure rapid access by the ambulance and fire services in the event of emergency]

The fact is that NOWHERE on these six sites have ALL four conditions been met and, hence, a Part 1 Certificate could NOT possibly have been issued by the County Council. Buildings, therefore, in contravention of County Council policy, should NOT have been occupied. One might have expected that a report by a responsible officer would reflect, and attempt not to gloss over, the reality of the situation, which he was reputedly investigating. To merely record that one or more but not all requirements have been met, can be seen as something less than a creditable act by this officer.

Incidentally, it should be noted that ANY dwelling on an estate which does NOT meet any of the first three requirements listed above is NOT covered by a Part 1 Certificate.

c]  The inadequacy of a cash deposit/bond to cover surety, whether it be related to an A.P.C.  Notice or to a Section 38 Agreement, is NOT to be treated as some incidental fact. It should be recognised, for what it is, a failure to discharge a statutory duty by adequately protecting householders on new residential estates against the possibility of street works' charges. The considerable shortfall in protection offered by an inadequate deposit reflects badly on the original estimate of the cost of the street works, which should have been enough to enable the Council to complete the streets if the developer did not, for some reason, fulfil his obligations. Therefore, at best, it is a reflection of IRRESPONSIBILITY and/or INCOMPETENCE, for which someone should be accountable. That this is NOT recognised but camouflaged, will be seen, in an institution which is NOT hesitant to proclaim its transparency and accountability credentials, as a further indication of the wide disparity between theory and practice.

At Park an Bans, where this deficiency actually occurred, local residents had to put up with the inconvenience and hazards of a situation where the developer failed for some three years to complete the streets works. Not only was block paving not provided and some footways remained unconstructed but also manhole covers were set at 100 mm above the surface level. The inadequacy of the cash deposit meant that the County Council had insufficient leverage to compel the intransigent developer to meet his responsibilities to the local residents since it had, by its failure to follow the A.P.C. procedure correctly, already carelessly surrendered the opportunity to pursue the developer through the courts.

d] "The adequacy of site testing" is NOT considered by the report. It is significantly unable to refute the statement that, on the 6 residential estates, there is sound evidence to show that all too frequently the construction of dwellings has PRECEDED the securing of surety and that the occupation of dwellings has PRECEDED the issue of a Part 1 Certificate.

Furthermore, in view of the questions which I had posed about the laxness of inspection procedures during the construction of the Sandy Lane by-pass and which were NOT addressed by the Head of Structures' report only a few months previously, it would not seem to have been unreasonable to have expected some indication of the efficacy of street works' inspections on the six Camborne-Redruth sites. An inspection fee is said to have been paid in 5 out of six cases but this in itself, as the construction of the Sandy Lane by-pass where an inspection fee had also been paid clearly shows,  is NO guarantee of the inherent soundness of the roads, which a developer has constructed.

3] While there is an acknowledgement of the report's being a response to my concerns, there is NO reference to my accompanying the Network Manager on the tour of the sites, where I made sure he was clearly au fait with ALL the attendant irregularities. These, it will be recalled, I had already brought to the attention of the Director of P.T.and E. when I met him at Carknown Gardens and they were described at some length in the document which I left with the Head of Audit Services at our first meeting on 30 September 2002. [CLICK here to access that document where  'THIRDLY', 'FOURTHLY',  'FIFTHLY' and 'SIXTHLY' are relevant.]

The claim is made that he "reviewed the file on the specific sites" but there is sound reason to question whether this review included a critical appraisal of the file contents in relation either to the requirements of council policy and a statutory duty or in relation to the features, to which I drew the officer's attention, in each of the sites.

  Click here to proceed to The Conclusion to be Drawn from Both Documents.