A DAMNING report has concluded that Inverclyde Council’s costly bid to bulldoze the rundown Clune Park housing estate was based on ‘flawed’, ‘inadequate’ and ‘tainted’ assumptions.

A ruling has gone in favour of property owners and landlords at the dilapidated Port Glasgow scheme who fought the local authority over its insistence that every building there was structurally unstable.

Sheriff Derek Hamilton has declared in a 91-page judgement that the council should now ‘give consideration’ to his comments before any decisions are taken on what happens next.

The senior lawman pointed to a succession of inconsistencies in the evidence provided by building expert David Turnbull, who compiled two reports which the council relied upon in order to issue nearly 300 demolition orders at Clune Park.

Mr Turnbull – who was a partner with Greenock structural engineering consultancy ATK – stated that corrosion of steel reinforcements had led to expansion of the alloy which had significantly weakened buildings.

But after that conclusion – which was reached after a walk-round survey – was challenged, he declared that the reinforcements had become ‘de-bonded’ from concrete roof beams.

Sheriff Hamilton stated in his ruling that Mr Turnbull’s evidence was ‘unscientific, speculative and selective’.

The sheriff said: “I find it surprising that he could reach his conclusions, and also maintain them in his second report, without ever having been inside any of the properties, or having been on the roofs.”

Sheriff Hamilton added: “He accepted that early on he came to a conclusion as to the reasons for the cracks in the buildings, and he looked for evidence to support his conclusion. I believe his approach was flawed.

“It was based on inadequate inspection of the properties and an initial erroneous conclusion as to the roof structure, and to the extent and pattern of the reinforcement steel.”

An unprecedented 270 cases against the council were lodged at Greenock Sheriff Court before the legal teams for the local authority and property owners agreed on six test cases to go forward to evidential hearings.

Sheriff Hamilton states in his report: “Mr Turnbull’s evidence was not what might be expected of an expert witness.

“It was ultimately inherently inconsistent and confusing.”

Newly formed factors Clune Park Estates Limited today hailed the sheriff’s ruling.

A spokesman for the company said: “Our clients are delighted with the court’s verdict which they believe confirms their long held belief that both Inverclyde Council and ATK misrepresented the condition of these buildings in order for the former to acquire this prime residential site for a negligible sum.

“There has never been any evidence to confirm the ridiculous theory of structural instability.”

Sheriff Hamilton said that the council appeared to use a ‘very broad brush approach’ in serving demolition orders based on ATK’s reports and a further survey by another firm.

He stated that the local authority relied upon ‘clearly inadequate inspections’ and ‘extrapolated assumptions’.

Mr Turnbull had told the court that he came up with his changed theory of ‘de-bonding’ after ‘waking on Christmas Eve’ last year – around four weeks before the case was due to be heard.

Sheriff Hamilton said: “I have grave concerns that very limited inspections of two very small areas is being advanced by the defender (the council) to support a general proposition of de-bonding in respect of all of the appeal properties.”

The lawman added that on the ‘crucial issue’ of structural stability the council was in ‘some difficulty’ because Mr Turnbull had clearly stated that the buildings at Clune Park would be safe for up to a further 10 years. 

Sheriff Hamilton said: “The difficulty with Mr Turnbull’s evidence is that it is tainted by his acceptance that almost from the outset he had concluded that the roofs were moving due to corrosion expansion, and he looked for evidence to support his conclusion.

“His search for such evidence was perhaps to the exclusion of other evidence pointing in a different direction. I am satisfied that there was no proper basis for the defender’s decision to serve demolition orders in respect of the appeal properties.”

He concluded: “Whilst I am not aware of the evidence held by the defender relating to the other properties within the Clune Park estate, and therefore I am not aware of the basis on which it was decided to serve hundreds of demolition orders, I would have grave concerns with any decision to serve demolition orders in respect of properties which had not been inspected.

“I would hope that if the sisted cases are to be brought forward to a hearing, consideration will be given to some of the comments I have made in this decision.”