THE PLANNING, TRANSPORTATION AND ESTATES REPORT

BY THE HEAD OF STRUCTURES   :  A CRITIQUE

This internal departmental report set was set up by the Director of Planning, Transportation and Estates in June 2002. It was, I was assured, to provide answers to a number of questions, which for some six months had remained unanswered. In the words of the Director, who wrote in a letter to me on 14 June 2002, "..........I have asked a senior manager within my Department to undertake an independent and comprehensive review of the whole process [i.e.at Sandy Lane], including ACTIONS and INACTIONS, ........to prepare a report for possible procedural changes ........[and] to answer the written questions,  [which] you left with me".

IN SO FAR AS THE PLEDGE TO REVIEW the '' whole process, including actions and inactions" is concerned, there was a conspicuous failure to shed any light on those matters, which had caused me considerable disquiet. Among those which it failed to address were:

1] Why there were INEXPLICABLE differences between the sections constructed by the developer [a quid pro quo for granting planning permission for considerable residential development on adjacent land] and the arms-length County Council company, Cormac?

a] It would appear that, while Cormac complied with Council procedure, the developer did not.

The official files at Scorrier indicate that the determination of the bearing capacity of the sub-grade materials, which is expressed in terms of the Californian Bearing Ratio [C.B.R.], had been carried out by the County Council's own Group Assistant Engineer, who was NOT even a qualified engineer, and NOT by an U.K.A.S. accredited laboratory NOR by an approved consultant, as Council policy requires [Vide Page 60 of the Cornwall Design Guide]. This officer, using a Clegg Hammer, took only three measurements and his work sheet reveals that there had been a faulty interpretation of the C.B.R. values of the sub-grade material, which led to a serious underestimate of the thickness of the sub-base, which in turn would have meant that the thickness of the over-layers required would have been underestimated.

b] While the by-pass was constructed in an area of historic metallurgical mining activity, Cormac deemed it was essential to include the precaution of including a geo-grid and a capping layer, whereas the developer did not. This would have saved the developer something in the order of £100,000.

As a result there must be a reasonable doubt about the soundness of the road, which has finally been adopted by the County Council.

In fairness, it must be emphasised that this situation was not put to the Director at the time and only became evident after I inspected the official files, which I was allowed to do on 8 August, 2002. However, it might have been expected that the Head of Structures, who was conducting a "thorough and comprehensive review of the whole process, including actions and inactions" and, on his own admission studied the Scorrier files, would have FAILED to observe and comment on these crucial facts.

2] Why was it that the by-pass was opened to public use in early December 2001 when

a] the kerbs were grossly un-aligned, in both horizontal and vertical planes, which far exceeded the permitted tolerances, to such an extent that it was even visually most unsatisfactory. Ultimately, as a result of my persistent insistence, they were dug up and re-aligned. Unfortunately, while much better, they still, in the opinion of independent and reputable engineers which I have consulted, do NOT meet the required specifications?

b] the finish of the wearing course was so irregular that to merely to drive over its surface was sufficient to be aware of its flawed nature. Again, as a result of my vigorous representations, the wearing surface was ultimately replaced in early May, 2002 and it has to be said that new surface is very good indeed,

c] in the two places there were such accumulations of water as to make driving conditions hazardous, a hazard which even now has STILL not been eliminated?

d] a Stage 3 Safety Audit had NOT been carried out?

Is it really conceivable that a rational developer, who would not have been unaware of the deficiencies of the road, would have gone to the trouble and expense of putting road markings in place before it was opened for public use, had he any worries that his standards of workmanship would be challenged by the County Council and that he would seriously expose himself to the threat of being required at the very least to dig up and realign the kerbs, lay a regulating course and relay the wearing course, which did finally happen as a result of my persistent representations, at a cost which the deputy Director has conceded in an internal e-mail to the network manager  could have been of bankrupting proportions to a small firm?

Members have still have NOT been told why the by-pass was opened in such an unsatisfactory state. Nor has any pressure been brought upon senior officers to do so by either Internal or External Audit!!.  

3] Why did the author of the 'thorough and comprehensive review' DISREGARD these significant facts and CONCLUDE that "the new road works were completed on 15 JANUARY 2002" and that "the ride quality was significantly defective, confirmed by testing on 21 JANUARY 2002." [ vide 1.0 on Page 2 of his report]

The author of the review has clearly NOT carefully considered the evidence. What actually took place on 15 January was, NOT a laying of the wearing course but a patching in three small areas of a wearing course, which had already been unsatisfactorily laid more than a month earlier.  Before Christmas 200, I began an e-mail correspondence with officers, in which I persistently questioned why a road with such an unsatisfactory surface could be accepted by the County Council. It seems that the contractor, employed by the developer, was trying to avoid the replacing the whole of the wearing course surface and was suggesting that he should be allowed to see whether a 'hot-potch' treatment of patching would be acceptable. The result was that road surface was even WORSE worse than it was before!!

So concerned was I, that I requested the Deputy-Director to ride along the road himself, which he promptly did. His reaction was explosive. He immediately ordered a wearing course road test, which took place on 21 January, to compare it with the previous test which was undertaken on 19 December. This demonstrated clearly that the surface of the road was indeed worse than it had been when tested a month before!! Following that, he took steps to ensure that the wearing course was replaced and the kerbs re-aligned.  

No one would dispute that SUBSEQUENTLY officers did act "responsibly and professionally" as the report claimed [vide the penultimate paragraph on Page 2] but it would be extremely doubtful whether these adjectives could be used to describe the dilatory actions of officers in the PRECEDING period.  In fact, having regard for the particular circumstances, and the prevailing laxity in dealing with developers generally, it might be thought that, were it not for my persistent intervention, the developer would have got away with his unsatisfactory work!

4] Why was NO bond in place BEFORE the construction of the by-pass began as Council policy required?

The Cornwall Design Guide, which prescribes the requirements which developers MUST follow, lays down that, "Under NO circumstances shall works be permitted within the limits of the publicly maintained highway UNTIL the Section 278 Agreement is completed AND the bond is SECURED".

Though the Section 278 Agreement was drawn up on 12 November 1998, NO bond has ever been lodged with the County Council and YET road works began in early August 2001. Without doubt, in view of Senior Management's record, it would have been better had the Cornwall Design Guide required that the bond had been in place at the SAME time as Section 278 Agreement was drawn up, a change which the report indeed recommended.

However, the fact that there had been an interval of 30 months between the drawing up of the Section 278 Agreement and the commencement of road works, CANNOT be accepted, as the report did, that this interval was an understandable reason for management's failure. Unfortunately, there is IRREFUTABLE evidence, contained in the internal e-mails in the County Highways files that Officers, in spite of the lapse of time, were perfectly AWARE of the situation. On 16 July 2001, the Assistant Group Engineer had written to inform two officers of higher status that the developer was proposing to commence road works in roughly two weeks' time. He reminded them that surety was NOT in place but that the developer was prepared, if it was acceptable to C.C.C., to make a cash deposit, and ultimately to receive the refund, in Euros. The following day a response from the Legal Services department rejected outright this offer.

Therefore, it is only too CLEAR that officers were well aware that the County Council was NOT in possession of the surety, which was an essential pre-condition for the commencement of any road works. Nonetheless, the developer WAS allowed to begin his UNLAWFUL action, [in which, by its acquiescence, the County Council  may be  open to the charge  of aiding and abetting the committing of what may be construed as a criminal offence]  which, had the developer failed to meet his obligations to complete his section of the by-pass, would have exposed the taxpayer to a considerable, and quite unnecessary, financial liability.

It cannot but be acknowledged that this situation is reflective of GROSS irresponsiblity, which CANNOT be glossed over merely by modifying council policy, however sensible that modification may well be. In addition, it should be remembered that it was Senior Management, who had originally recommended this particular policy for approval by members and also that it had failed to detect what presumably was its own shortcomings during the review of the system, which it was its duty  periodically to undertake.

In a situation, where there was NO bond in place, and at least some officers were aware of that fact, it seems to be BEYOND BELIEF that the County Solicitor/Monitoring Officer of all people could write an undated letter presumably at the end of February 2002 to the developer threatening that "......no BOND reductions will be contemplated until such time as the remedial works..... have been completed."!!  Does this not suggest that, if the developer had any doubts as to whether the County Council was actually living in the real world - and he must have had many- they would hardly have been dissipated by this officer's somewhat empty, and therefore ludicrous, threat?

IN SO FAR AS THE PLEDGE to prepare a report for possible procedural changes is concerned, it is sufficient to note that the procedural changes which the report recommends are bizarrely, and very largely, identical to the procedures which ALREADY existed. Had these been followed in the first place, the problems almost certainly would NOT have arisen. That this is the case can be established by reference to Pages 31 - 34, of my response to this report, which will subsequently appear on this web-site. [CLICK here to access]

IN SO FAR AS THE PLEDGE to answer the list of questions, which I left with the Director is concerned and which are recorded below, I am unaware of ANY of the questions which have been answered. [CLICK here to consult that list]

Click to proceed to a Critique of the Planning, Transportation & Estates Report by the Network Manager.