Beechfields Winsford

Trevor R Nunn made this Freedom of Information request to Cheshire West and Chester Council

Response to this request is long overdue. By law, under all circumstances, Cheshire West and Chester Council should have responded by now (details). You can complain by requesting an internal review.

From: Trevor R Nunn

10 November 2009

Dear Sir or Madam,

I would like a copy of any and all information that would explain
why the roads servicing Beechfields, Winsford remain unadopted.

Yours faithfully,

Trevor R Nunn

Link to this

From: CHALMERS, Iris (PA to Chief Executive)
Cheshire West and Chester Council

8 December 2009

Attachment 400405 Freedom of Information request Beechfields Winsford.html
2K Download

Dear Mr Nunn

Freedom of Information Act 2000

Request 400405 : Status of The Highway Known as Beechfields, Winsford

We refer to your emailed FOI request dated 10 November attached:

I would like a copy of any and all information that would explain why
the roads servicing Beechfields, Winsford remain unadopted.

With regard specifically to the status of Beechfields it is considered to
be essentially the same query you raised in your request of 16 June
2009 logged as 400085. The response to that request in Steve Robinson's
email dated 22 July was as follows:-

Dear Mr Nunn

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000 Unadopted Roads

I refer to your FOIA request number 400085 made by emailed dated 16 June
timed at 18.48. I apologise on behalf of the council that you have
not had a response sooner.

Beechfields has remained unadopted due to the intermediate sections of
road linking it to the main adopted road network being subject to separate
phased adoption agreements with the Authority. No Highway Authority
will adopt a road in isolation from the main adopted network and the
adoption of these lengths of street under separate phased road
Agreements has therefore had to take place in a progressive sequential
manner.

On a development the size of Rookery Rise the completion of the individual
phases by the respective developer/s can take sometime to complete prior
to the next phase being released for further development. Usually, the
speed of construction operations to finish off the individual phases is
beyond the control of the Authority and is directly governed by economic
conditions and/or the developer's own build programme.

In this instance the developer initially made normal progress with the
construction of the first phase of Rookery Rise. However, some time ago it
became apparent that the developer's progress on site had started to
slow due to financial difficulties. This ultimately lead to the receiver
being called in and, finally the developer company going into
liquidation. Ultimately, as you are aware, the highway authority carried
out the works to bring that part of Rookery Rise up to adoption standard.

From your comprehensive knowledge of issues relating to the frontage
of your property onto Rookery Rise and documentation and reports in your
possession or provided to you in the past you will be aware that there
existed an outstanding and complex dispute with the developer and
subsequently the highway authority concerning the vehicular crossing to
your private drive access and the installation of a public pedestrian
footway required to bring Rookery Rise up to adoption standard. However,
that section of Rookery Rise, phase one has now been adopted.

I can now confirm that phase two, of which Beechfields forms part, is also
now of a suitable standard to be adopted by the Authority. Ideally, that
adoption would have been finalised by now, but unfortunately the Authority
is currently undergoing a major reorganisation following the abolition of
the County and District Councils and the creation of this new unitary
Council which has given rise to some delay. Notwithstanding this I can
inform you that it will now receive appropriate attention in order for
Beechfields to achieve adoption status as publicly maintainable street.

It is not considered that there is any additional information to provide
to you which is not already in your possession.

I consider that the substantive reply makes your recent request for an
Internal Review no longer necessary.

Steve Robinson

You raised additional related queries logged as 20090807 in emails dated
22 and 24 July concerning the status of Beechfields and Steve Robinson
responded by letter dated 7 August as follows:-

Dear Mr Nunn

Thank you for your emails dated 22 July and 24 July.

There are no "information documents" pertinent to your assertion that
Beechfields could or should have been adopted in 2001 by reason of the
adoption of later westerly phases of Rookery Rise, ie the Barratt
development.

As a matter of sound operational highway engineering practice, road
adoptions on major developments are, as far as possible, dealt with
sequentially in an orderly fashion as it can never be assumed that
subsequent phases will necessarily be constructed without modification
from the initial approved layout or may be provided with different
ultimate connections to the existing road network.

You will be aware that the scarce engineering resource available to
supervise the adoption of the roads on the Rookery Rise development was
necessarily and significantly diverted and distracted in having to
address the longstanding and complex dispute concerning the vehicular
crossing to your private drive access and the installation of a public
pedestrian footway required to bring Rookery Rise Phase 1 up to adoption
standard.

I trust this addresses all your points.

Yours sincerely

Steve Robinson

Since Steve Robinson's letter of 7 August, I can inform you that the
restructuring of the Council's services, referred to in that letter, is
currently underway following some 466 staff having left on voluntary
redundancy on 30th September. These included officers in Highways and
Transportation Service. This, combined with other temporary operational
resource constraints, has meant the procedures to bring about the adoption
of Beechfields have not yet been initiated. In that context, it remains
the case that there is no documentary information to disclose in relation
to your request.

Yours sincerely

Iris Chalmers

FOI West

Cheshire West and Chester Council

Tel: 01244 975968

Email: [email address]

Location: Room 283, County Hall, Chester CH1 1SF

Visit: cheshirewestandchester.gov.uk

Original request:

<<400405 Freedom of Information request - Beechfields Winsford>>

show quoted sections

Link to this

From: Trevor R Nunn

8 December 2009

Dear Cheshire West & Chester Council,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of
Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Cheshire West &
Chester Council's handling of my FOI request 'Beechfields
Winsford'.

This request is not the same as an earlier request for as two main
reasons. Firstly there is a significant time delay between this and
any earlier request but most importantly as a result of other FOI
requests between this and the earlier request the earlier
excuses/reasons, used for the road not being adopted, are no longer
valid. I want the real reason/information behind the fact that
Beechfields remains unadopted as of the 10th December 2009.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is
available on the Internet at this address:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/be...

Yours faithfully,

Trevor R Nunn

Link to this

Trevor R Nunn left an annotation ( 8 December 2009)

I submitted an asscoiated FOI request in which the Council admitted the following

[The costs of adopting such a road in such a manner in an uncontested case would usually be modest and would arise from the officer time involved in the following elements:-

* Assessing from an engineering point of view that the works were to adoptable standard.
* Surveying/measuring the area for adoption and preparing a plan and description.
* Preparing a site notice and erecting a site notice on site and subsequently removing it together with related correspondence.
* Adding the site to the statutory list of streets and the internet gazetteer of maintainable streets.

In a straightforward case, such a procedure could be completed in an estimated total of, say, 10 hours by all officers involved but would be undertaken as and when other priorities permit.]

The Council say it could be done in 10 hours but in their response above they argue they still haven't got the time or resources even though the road was capable of being adopted years ago. In addition they have spent a vast amount of time and money on other less urgent work.

Link to this

Trevor R Nunn left an annotation ( 8 December 2009)

My blog about the issue

http://bodgedroad.blogspot.com/

Link to this

From: Trevor R Nunn

8 December 2009

Dear Cheshire West & Chester Council,

I would like to add the following information to my request for an
internal review. Vale Royal Borough Council (now Cheshire West and
Chester) paid some sixty thousand pounds in 2001 to finish the
roads on Beechfields to adoptable standard.

It could have been adopted via the west part of Rookery Rise when
that was adopted. On your own admission it would take less than 10
hours of an officers time to get the road adopted. To suggest that
a council can spend sixty thousand pounds on getting a road
completed to adoptable standards but not find the resources over
the last 8 years to adopt it is ludicrous.

No more ludicrous explanations please supply the real reason why
Beechfields has not yet been adopted.

Yours faithfully,

Trevor R Nunn

Link to this

From: CHALMERS, Iris (PA to Chief Executive)
Cheshire West and Chester Council

18 December 2009

Mr Nunn I am writing to acknowledge receipt of your request.

Iris Chalmers
FOI West
Cheshire West and Chester Council

Tel: 01244 975968
Email: [email address]
Location: Room 283, County Hall, Chester CH1 1SF
Visit: cheshirewestandchester.gov.uk

show quoted sections

Link to this

From: CHALMERS, Iris (PA to Chief Executive)
Cheshire West and Chester Council

18 December 2009

Dear Mr Nunn

I refer to your request submitted on 8 December for a review of the handling of your FOI request in relation to the status of Beechfields together with your supplementary representation supplied on the same date.

Your maintain that the passage of time from your original FOIA request on this subject matter and the outcomes of other FOIA requests must necessarily mean that new reasons lie behind the continued non-adoption of Beechfields. That is not accepted. It remains the case that this task will receive appropriate attention as and when operational priorities and resources permit. It is still the case, for example, that structures within the operational services of the Council have not been appointed to.

The stated terms of your request for a review assert that you have been provided with an explanation that is "ludicrous" and that there is a "real" reason why Beechfields has not been adopted which has not been disclosed to you.

It is not accepted that you have set out sufficient grounds to warrant a review being undertaken of the handling of your FOIA requests in respect of the status of Beechfields and your request for a review is therefore declined.

Iris Chalmers
FOI West
Cheshire West and Chester Council

Tel: 01244 975968
Email: [email address]
Location: Room 283, County Hall, Chester CH1 1SF
Visit: cheshirewestandchester.gov.uk

show quoted sections

Link to this

From: Trevor R Nunn

18 December 2009

Dear CHALMERS, Iris (PA to Chief Executive),

Thanks for the response, my complaint will be with the ICO later
today.

Yours sincerely,

Trevor R Nunn

Link to this

From: CHALMERS, Iris (PA to Chief Executive)
Cheshire West and Chester Council

18 December 2009

Mr Nunn, thank you for your email. Iris Chalmers.

Iris Chalmers
FOI West
Cheshire West and Chester Council

Tel: 01244 975968
Email: [email address]
Location: Room 283, County Hall, Chester CH1 1SF
Visit: cheshirewestandchester.gov.uk

show quoted sections

Link to this

Trevor R Nunn left an annotation (27 December 2009)

The information they don't want to supply is the reason why Beechfields was not adopted from the west side of the development in the spring of 2005 and why is has not been adopted since then. To suggest that they have been too busy reforming the council over the last few months to adopt Beechfields or that there were problems with the east side if the estate does nothing to explain why Beechfields wasn't adopted between 2005 and the spring of 2009 when Cheshire West was formed. Especially since the former Vale Royal spent thousands of pounds in 2001 in order to complete Beechfields to adoptable standards.

Link to this

Trevor R Nunn left an annotation (17 January 2010)

My blog on the subject

http://bodgedroad.blogspot.com/2010/01/c...

Link to this

From: McGINN, Nick
Cheshire West and Chester Council

13 April 2010

Attachment SKMBT C25310041308480.pdf
1.3M Download View as HTML

Dear Mr Nunn

In connection with the investigation currently underway by Mr McNeil of
the Information Commissioners Office into your complaint, a ruling has
been made that the attached scanned documents from the files of the
Planning and Transport service rank for disclosure under FOIA and I
therefore provide them to you.

Yours sincerely

Nicholas S McGinn
Group Solicitor: Environment
Cheshire West and Chester Council

Tel: 01244 402130
FAX: 01244 400128
Email:
[email address]
Location:Room 350, The Forum, Chester,CH12HS
Post: Legal Services,County Hall,Chester,CH11SF
DX: 717531 Chester 15
Visit: cheshirewestandchester.gov.uk

show quoted sections

Link to this

Trevor R Nunn left an annotation (15 April 2010)

Once again they have sent information which is irrelevant to my request. The information I require, which they appear very reluctant to divulge, is why were the roads in question were not adopted from the WESTERLY end of the crescent know as Rookery Rise when that part of the development was fully adopted in 2005.

The Westerly end of the development was completed to adoptable standards by Barratts during 2001 exactly the same time as Vale Royal Borough Council completed the roads leading to Beechfields to adoptable standards. (On the 1998 recommendations of the Local Government Ombudsman).

However, when the Highway Authority adopted the Barratt highways they did not, but could have and should have, adopted those completed to adoptable standards by Vale Royal Borough Council, My FOI requests seeks information as to why they didn't do so.

Information which both Cheshire West and Chester Council and their predecessor Cheshire County Council have shown an unwillingness to supply.

Link to this

Trevor R Nunn left an annotation (22 June 2010)

I have today been informed by the ICO that my FOI complaint is at the decision notice phase.

Link to this

Things to do with this request

Anyone:
Cheshire West and Chester Council only:
 
Would you like to work with the team that built this site? We’re recruiting.