Dalby Street, Talacre and views of Departments of Camden having responsibilities

Dear Sir or Madam,

At the public inquiry I understand that Camden’s representative
said that the council confirmed that the access arrangements are
acceptable during the “permanent” situation, ie after construction
and then for all time.

Could you provide me with the actual responses of the different
departments within Camden who are affected by the access
arrangements made following the change from the “one way” access to
the “two way” access. The particular features of the two way
arrangements I have in mind include the lack of footway on the
road, single stopping place for vehicles to drop and collect,
absence of parking or waiting space on New Dalby Street and the
need for marshals.

I am aware of comments made by John Mann, Martin Stanton and Liz
West in 2004 but they referred to the temporary access situation ie
when the flats were being built and to the one way scheme.

I am also aware of a reply given to a different request by Bob West
on 8.10.08 (document 27 in www.talacrefacts.org.uk) which said
“When the Council agreed to sell the land, Leisure and Community
Services, including the Director, the Head of Sports and the Head
of Parks, was very supportive of the proposal. It was considered
that it would improve the regeneration of the area and would
enhance the sports centre and park. Consideration of the impact of
the planning application on the sports centre, due to its proximity
to the development, would have been an integral part of the
assessment by the planning officer...”. Those comments from the
Head of Parks and Head of Leisure were all to the earlier one way
scheme which had a totally different impact on the Sports Centre,
children, disabled users of the sports centre and park etc

The particular departments I have in mind are the following but
please do not restrict your response only to them:

(a) Leisure

(b) Parks

(c) Children

(d) Disabled drivers

(e) Other disabled persons

Yours faithfully,

Jessica Thomas

Dear Camden Borough Council,

I made a Freedom of Information request to you via the
WhatDoTheyKnow website on 4th December 2009. The request was headed
'Dalby Street, Talacre and views of Departments of Camden having
responsibilities'
I am writing this to remind you that your response is now overdue.
I look forward to hearing from you soon,

Yours faithfully,

Jessica Thomas

Dear Camden Borough Council,

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

I am writing to request an internal review of Camden Borough
Council's handling of my FOI request 'Dalby Street, Talacre and
views of Departments of Camden having responsibilities'.

Your response to this request is now long overdue (the request was
made on 4th December and a reminder sent to you on 26th January). I
haven't yet even received an acknowledgement of my request.

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

Yours faithfully,

Jessica Thomas

Dear David Morrissey

Thank you for the response dated 19.3.10 to my FOI request of
4.12.09. I would be grateful if you will provide me with the serial
number allocated to the request in case it is needed for future
reference.

Could you, for completeness, forward me the attachment from the
Highways Dept? The attachment you actually sent was the public
inquiry document dated 17.1.08 from the Head of Sport and Physical
Activity about whether the access could be “managed”.

As the Information Commissioners Office recommends, I will
elaborate on the reasoning behind my request since I do not believe
you have fully responded to it. I am investigating the extent to
which Camden, as owners of the Sports Centre, fulfilled its
responsibility to ensure the Sports Centre was not disadvantaged by
the very radical changes envisaged for the development when access
changed from being on a one way wide road to a pavement-less, two
way road which would have to be managed by marshals. As Camden’s
responsibilities cover many areas impacted by this change in
access, I am trying to establish if Camden has consulted the
relevant interests and what the responses were. These might include
Planning, Leisure (the park), Leisure (the Sports Centre incl
Gymnasium/Treetops/pitches), Housing, Parking (including relevant
facilities for Disabled parkers), Children and other vulnerable
people.

The period covered by my enquiry is

(a) when it was known that the 2004/2689/P scheme could not work
and a new application (2005/4170/P) was proposed and submitted.
This would be after the Development Control meeting that agreed
2689 (ie 30.9.04) and

(b) before the first submission to the Mayor to stop up Dalby
Street was made.

Documents produced after (b) above are less relevant to my enquiry
if they are only addressing whether the access arrangements decided
upon, are “manageable” – as opposed to their impact on the various
interested parties whose interests Camden has a duty to protect.
In your penultimate paragraph you refer to the only documents as
being the public inquiry documents, associated planning reports and
s106 agreements and state that they are all in the public domain. I
can find nothing in those that indicate that the relevant sections
of Camden were consulted or that they commented. (As far as I know,
the public inquiry documents are not on the web site but, as the
inquiry was essentially into whether the access was “manageable”,
such documents would only be relevant if they addressed the impact
on the various interested parties.)

Thank you in anticipation of your speedy reply,

Yours sincerely,

Jessica Thomas