pre crown holes

Did clancy act properly ? 


 

Plans were submitted in January 1998. A Notice of planning permission (151605) was issued in September 1998. No 8 states “full details of drainage requested”. In January 1999 John Newton and Partners commissioned a Ground Investigation. Followed by a more detailed Audit in May 1999. These show that some of the issues were well known to both Clancy and the Council. 

According to Stantec, Clancy encountered many difficulties, but allegedly did not report them the Council. They encountered voids and changes were made to the plans. It seems that Clancy just ignored these changes and the Council didn’t stop them. Is it possible that a blocked soakaway only metres from he collapses did not contribute to the collapses. Perhaps. Is it ok for a company like Clancy to put in soakaways over mines after being told not to ?

Soakaway Gallery

Post contruction 

Should oscm have acted sooner?


Whilst Clancy don’t deny doing anything wrong with the drains, their position here is clear. It seems that Clancy is of the opinion (from the letter their lawyers sent) that they think the Resident’s and OSCM seemingly knew about the issues with the drains, and therefore accepted the risks associated with putting in soakaways at the site.

In law, Clancy might have a point, the drains were highlighted as a problem at AGMs, so OSCM did know about it. Had the Management Company acted more quickly, might there have been the opportunity to divert surface water that runs down the road leading to the development away from the site rather than into the land over the mines.

Old Stocks Court Management

Despite Edward J Payne and Associates deciding to remove the soakaways, and the planning permission being changed, Clancy apparently ignored this and put one into made ground. 

post crown holes

council report detailing issues undisclosed by council and oscm


After the first hole in February 2014 Peter Brett Associates (PBA now Stantec) were appointed. Later that year, as PBA were working on site, another far larger collapse was triggered. The parties involved say they were advised there was no recourse against Clancy. Then, for some reason, OSCM and a Resident asked for help from the Council. The Council, denied any responsibility but agreed to pay for PBA (Stantec) to do a desktop study of the site (did the Parties have permission from other Residents to make such an agreement ?). The study was then sent to OSCM to comment, and then OSCM and a Resident sent the report to the other Residents.  The report recommended an extensive site survey. A meeting was held (not a formal company meeting) and it seems it was decided not to do the survey. Why is unclear.