LB Sutton Primary School Expansion Consultation Document

The request was partially successful.

Dear Sutton Borough Council,

On page 6 of this document the following reference is made:

"In addition, in the light of further discussions with the head teacher and governors of Dorchester Primary School, it has been agreed to include this school within the overall consultation as a possible candidate to meet the increased demand in the north west of the Borough, in particular,
Worcester Park."

Could you please provide me with the following information:

1. Full details of all meetings that have taken place between LB Sutton and Dorchester Primary School concerning the proposed expansion of this school.

2.The dates and names of all persons present at such meetings?

3. The minutes of such meetings.

4. The name of the decision maker at LB Sutton who authorised Dorchester Primary School to be included in the Consultation Document.

5. The reasoning behind the decision to include Dorchester Primary School in the Consultation Document.

6. Copies of all emails and official correspondence relating to all the above questions in relation to this matter?

Yours faithfully,

Darren Ayling

Freedom Of Information, Sutton Borough Council

Dear Mr Ayling

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000 - INFORMATION REQUEST - REF NO - 2119
(please quote in correspondence)

I acknowledge your request for information received on 17 March 2010.

Your request is being considered and you will receive the information
requested within the statutory timescale of 20 working days as defined by
the Freedom of Information Act 2000, subject to the information not being
exempt or containing a reference to a third party.

If appropriate, the information may be provided in paper copy, normal font
size. If you require alternative formats, e.g. language, audio, large
print, etc. then please let me know.

For your information, the Act defines a number of exemptions which may
prevent release of the information you have requested. There will be an
assessment and if any of the exemption categories apply then the
information will not be released. You will be informed if this is the
case, including your rights of appeal.

If the information you request contains reference to a third party then
they may be consulted prior to a decision being taken on whether or not to
release the information to you. You will be informed if this is the case.

A fee may be payable for this information. This will be considered and you
will be informed if a fee is payable. In this event the fee must be paid
before the information is processed and released. The 20 working day time
limit for responses is suspended until receipt of the payment.

Yours sincerely

FOI Admin Officer

London Borough of Sutton

show quoted sections

Martin Joan, Sutton Borough Council

14 Attachments

Dear Mr Ayling

Attached are the responses to your recent enquiries:-

On page 6 of this document the following reference is made:

"In addition, in the light of further discussions with the head teacher
and governors of Dorchester Primary School, it has been agreed to include
this school within the Overall consultation as a possible candidate to
meet the increased demand in the north west of the Borough, in particular,
Worcester Park."

Could you please provide me with the following information?

Full details of all meetings that have taken place between LB Sutton and
Dorchester Primary School concerning the proposed expansion of this
school.

22 February - Ian Birnbaum, Stephen Ingram, Louise Austin, Tony Marshall
and Karen Dukes. To discuss the inclusion of the School in the
consultation.

25 January - David Ayres, Louise Austin, Karen Dukes. To notify the
school that the recommendation would be that it should not be expanded and
therefore would not be part of the forthcoming consultation.

8 December. David Ayres, Louise Austin and four Governors. To discuss the
letter of 21 November - specifically to advise that the LA were not in a
position to accede to the School's requirements or to commit to an
expansion and replacement project.

11 November. David Ayres. To attend the meeting of the Governing Body.

w/c 5 October. David Ayres, Paul Gray and the Consultant Architects. To
look at the options emerging from the Feasibility Study.

The dates and names of all persons present at such meetings?

Please see above.

The minutes of such meetings.

There are no minutes as such of any of these meetings.

However, a note summarising the areas of discussion at some of the
meetings is enclosed/attached.

The name of the decision maker at LB Sutton who authorised Dorchester
Primary School to be included in the Consultation Document.

The Urgency Procedure was initiated by Dr I Birnbaum, Strategic Director
CYPLS and, as with all Urgency Procedures, was authorised by the Leader of
the Council and the Mayor.

The reasoning behind the decision to include Dorchester Primary School in
the Consultation Document.

Please see attached urgency procedure.

Copies of all emails and official correspondence relating to all the above
questions in relation to this matter?

Please see attached.

Joan Martin, PA to Executive Head of Service Management

Children, Young People & Learning Services

London Borough of Sutton

Stonecourt

2 North Street

Carshalton

Surrey SM5 2HU

Tel.: 020 8770 6533, Fax: 020 8770 6636, web site: [1]www.suttonlea.org or
[2]www.sutton.gov.uk

This email and the information it contains are confidential and intended
solely for

the exclusive use of the individual to whom it is addressed. If you are
not the intended

recipient, this email should not be copied, forwarded, or printed for any
purpose, or

the contents disclosed to any other person. If you have received this
email in error,

please notify the London Borough of Sutton immediately on +44 (020) 8770
5000 or

email [email address] and then delete the email.

Although the London Borough of Sutton operates anti-virus programmes, it
does not

accept any responsibility for any damage whatsoever that is caused by
viruses being

passed.

This message has been scanned for malware.

References

Visible links
1. www.suttonlea.org
file:///tmp/www.suttonlea.org
2. www.sutton.gov.uk
file:///tmp/www.sutton.gov.uk

Dear Ms Martin,

Thank you for your prompt and informative reply to my FOI request.

I am however aware that a meeting took place in May 2009 between LB Sutton, Dorchester Primary School and Mr Paul Burstow MP concerning the proposed increase in the form entry size of the school.

Could you please provide details of this meeting, including any letters, emails or minutes that relate to this matter as it would appear that this matter was already being discussed prior to the school requesting and being included at the 'last minute' in the council's consultation document.

Yours sincerely,

Darren Ayling

Milne Sarah, Sutton Borough Council

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000 - INFORMATION REQUEST - REF NO - << REF>>
(please quote in correspondence)

Dear Mr Ayling

I acknowledge your request for information received on 19 April 2010.

Your request is being considered and you will receive the information
requested within the statutory timescale of 20 working days as defined by
the Freedom of Information Act 2000, subject to the information not being
exempt or containing a reference to a third party.

If appropriate, the information may be provided in paper copy, normal font
size. If you require alternative formats, e.g. language, audio, large
print, etc. then please let me know.

For your information, the Act defines a number of exemptions which may
prevent release of the information you have requested. There will be an
assessment and if any of the exemption categories apply then the
information will not be released. You will be informed if this is the
case, including your rights of appeal.

If the information you request contains reference to a third party then
they may be consulted prior to a decision being taken on whether or not to
release the information to you. You will be informed if this is the case.

A fee may be payable for this information. This will be considered and you
will be informed if a fee is payable. In this event the fee must be paid
before the information is processed and released. The 20 working day time
limit for responses is suspended until receipt of the payment.

Yours sincerely

FOI Admin Officer

London Borough of Sutton

show quoted sections

Dear Ms Milne,

Thank you for acknowledging my email as an additional FOI request.

For purposes of clarity so as to assist you I am aware that the local MP, Mr Burstown was in discussion with both the School and LB Sutton at the early part of 2009 and not just in May 2009 as previously stated and that information was circulated by Mr Burstow claiming that Dorchester Primary School was already 'earmarked' for expansion.

I wish to know:

1) What was the extent of those meetings and information presented or used and was this fact made aware to the author of the 'Consultation Document' concerning the expansion of Primary School places within Sutton?

2) If LB Sutton was already aware in February 2009 that Dorchester School was seeking expansion then why was the school not included routinely in the consultation document and the reasons for that non-inclusion?

Yours sincerely,

Darren Ayling

Darren Ayling

Dear London Borough Of Sutton,

Please respond to my FOI as you indicated in your email of 19 April 2010.

Yours sincerely,

Darren Ayling

Ayres David, Sutton Borough Council

1 Attachment

Mr Ayling

Please find attached the response to your FOI request.

David Ayres

Interim Head of Capital and Planning

CYPLS

London Borough of Sutton

0208 770 6553

07966 799823

This email and the information it contains are confidential and intended
solely for

the exclusive use of the individual to whom it is addressed. If you are
not the intended

recipient, this email should not be copied, forwarded, or printed for any
purpose, or

the contents disclosed to any other person. If you have received this
email in error,

please notify the London Borough of Sutton immediately on +44 (020) 8770
5000 or

email [email address] and then delete the email.

Although the London Borough of Sutton operates anti-virus programmes, it
does not

accept any responsibility for any damage whatsoever that is caused by
viruses being

passed.

This message has been scanned for malware.

Darren Ayling

Dear Sutton Borough Council,

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

I am writing to request an internal review of Sutton Borough Council's handling of my FOI request 'LB Sutton Primary School Expansion Consultation Document'.

I appreciate the fact that you claim an exemption in releasing the information requested but I would argue that the it is in the Public Interest to know what exact discussions went on between all parties given that Mr Burstow MP was 'claiming' the expansion of Dorchester Primary School, as a given event, in his party political newsletter distributed to 1000's of households within Sutton in 2009.

Even with these discussions at such a high level the school was NOT included in the original Consultation document for school expansion and I wish to understand the rationale behind this fact?

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

Yours faithfully,

Darren Ayling

Freedom Of Information, Sutton Borough Council

Dear Mr Ayling,

Request for review of the response to Freedom of Information Request
reference: 2188.

Thank you for your email received on Wednesday 26^th May. I acknowledge
your request for a review into the handling of your recent request for
information under our above reference.

The Corporate Customer Care team will arrange for a review of the way
your original request was processed. The appeal will be impartial and
conducted by a different officer to the person who took the original
decision. The appeal will usually be conducted within 20 days, although it
may take up to 40 days in some circumstances, and the decision will be
notified to you in writing. This is in accordance with the council's FoI
Appeals procedure and in line with Information Commissioner's Office
('ICO') guidance.

If you remain unhappy following the outcome of the appeal, you may then
refer to the ICO. If you have any queries or concerns then please
contact the FOI Admin Officer, London Borough of Sutton, Civic Offices, St
Nicholas Way, Sutton SM1 1EA or email [1][Sutton Borough Council request email]

Further information is also available from the ICO at:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House, Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Telephone: 01625 545 745
[2]www.ico.gov.uk

Yours sincerely,

Natalie Morgan

Corporate Customer Care Officer

Policy and Communications Team

Chief Executive's Group

London Borough of Sutton

Civic Offices

St Nicholas Way, Sutton SM1 1EA

Tel: 020 8770 6380

FAX: 020 8770 5404

www.sutton.gov.uk

show quoted sections

Freedom Of Information, Sutton Borough Council

Dear Mr Ayling

I refer to your email of 26 May and I apologise for the delay in my
response. You have requested an internal review of our response to your
FOI request 2188 which was in itself a follow up to your original request
ref 2119. I have reviewed our handling of your request, although I cannot
see that you have substantiated your request for an internal review or
explained why you believe our use of the exemption relating to Section 36
(2)b)ii) is incorrect.

Background to your request

On 17 March you submitted, via the "Whatdotheyknow" website an FOI request
relating to information on page 6 of the London Borough of Sutton Primary
School Expansion Consultation Document (as per the below):

"In addition, in the light of further discussions with the head

teacher and governors of Dorchester Primary School, it has been

agreed to include this school within the overall consultation as a

possible candidate to meet the increased demand in the north west

of the Borough, in particular,

Worcester Park."

Could you please provide me with the following information:

1. Full details of all meetings that have taken place between LB

Sutton and Dorchester Primary School concerning the proposed

expansion of this school.

2.The dates and names of all persons present at such meetings?

3. The minutes of such meetings.

4. The name of the decision maker at LB Sutton who authorised

Dorchester Primary School to be included in the Consultation

Document.

5. The reasoning behind the decision to include Dorchester Primary

School in the Consultation Document.

6. Copies of all emails and official correspondence relating to all

the above questions in relation to this matter?

Yours faithfully,

Darren Ayling

This was logged by our FOI team the same day and given the reference 2119
and the deadline of 14 April (20 working days). It was passed to David
Ayres, Interim Head of Capital & Planning to investigate and respond.

On 14 April you were provided with a response from Joan Martin, pa to the
Executive Head of Service Management including 8 attachments as follows:

o Letters from Dorchester Primary school dated 21 November 2009, 10
December 2009 and 12 February 2010-06-28
o Email correspondence relating to the "urgency procedure"
o Emailed copy of memo to the Mayor dated 22-02-10 under urgency
procedure, to include Dorchester.
o Signed copy of memo
o Email containing correspondence with head teacher at school
o Briefing note to Ian Birnbaum and Stephen Ingram

The service felt these documents fully responded to your request, which
was marked as resolved on our Tracker system with a note that it took 6
hours of officer time to respond to. (The consultation closed at the end
of April 2010 and the results considered at the meeting of the Council's
Executive on 7 June 2010. The Executive is the key decision making meeting
and the agenda, reports and minutes are available on the LBS website).

On 15 April you replied to Joan Martin, via the Whatdotheyknow website
with a follow-up question as below:

Dear Ms Martin,

Thank you for your prompt and informative reply to my FOI request.

I am however aware that a meeting took place in May 2009 between LB
Sutton, Dorchester Primary School and Mr Paul Burstow MP concerning the
proposed increase in the form entry size of the school.

Could you please provide details of this meeting, including any letters,
emails or minutes that relate to this matter as it would appear that this
matter was already being discussed prior to the school requesting and
being included at the 'last minute' in the

council's consultation document.

Yours sincerely,

Darren Ayling

This was logged as a separate request and given reference 2188, and an
acknowledgement was sent to you on 19 April (the next working day), the 20
day deadline being 17 May. You responded to the acknowledgement email
expanding your request as below:

Thank you for acknowledging my email as an additional FOI request.

For purposes of clarity so as to assist you I am aware that the

local MP, Mr Burstow was in discussion with both the School and LB

Sutton at the early part of 2009 and not just in May 2009 as

previously stated and that information was circulated by Mr Burstow

claiming that Dorchester Primary School was already 'earmarked' for

expansion.

I wish to know:

1) What was the extent of those meetings and information presented

or used and was this fact made aware to the author of the

'Consultation Document' concerning the expansion of Primary School

places within Sutton?

2) If LB Sutton was already aware in February 2009 that Dorchester

School was seeking expansion then why was the school not included

routinely in the consultation document and the reasons for that

non-inclusion?

Yours sincerely,

Darren Ayling

This further request was responded to by David Ayres by email on 25 May,
unfortunately this was 6 working days past the deadline for which we
apologise. In the response you were advised that Paul Burstow was briefed
on the authority's emerging strategy to address the requirement for
increased school places, but not specifically in relation to any
particular school. I am sure you appreciate MPs often discuss matters of
local concern with officers and correspond on behalf of their constituents
by way of casework, however we do not believe there was a specific meeting
with Mr Burstow in the time period you suggest which related specifically
to Dorchester School.

We cannot comment on any meeting or discussion he may have had with the
school direct. We understand your comment that Mr Burstow was circulating
information claiming Dorcester was "earmarked for expansion" comes from an
item included in his Worcester Park newsletter. This newsletter is
produced by Mr Burstow and not by LBS and therefore we are not responsible
for its contents.

The response was pasted into the two headings of your request as follows:

For purposes of clarity so as to assist you I am aware that the local MP,
Mr Burstow was in discussion with both the School and LB Sutton at the
early part of 2009 and not just in May 2009 as previously stated and that
information was circulated by Mr Burstow claiming that Dorchester Primary
School was already 'earmarked' for expansion.

I wish to know:

1) What was the extent of those meetings and information presented or used
and was this fact made aware to the author of the 'Consultation Document'
concerning the expansion of Primary School places within Sutton?

An informal exploratory meeting was held on the 23rd February 2009 to
discuss the future of the School. This meeting was attended by Mrs Groves
(Interim Head of Capital and Planning LBS), the Headteacher and governor
representatives.

Subsequently Paul Burstow MP was briefed on the emerging strategy of the
Local Authority in response to the increase in the number of live births
in the Borough and therefore an increased demand for places in reception
year. Mr Burstow was not provided with details of individual school
meetings, but was simply given a briefing regarding how the Authority was
planning to respond to the rising birth rate.

The Authority is not in a position to release documentation related to
this and any subsequent meetings. Its disclosure is refused under section
36(2)b)ii) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The information
concerned contains expressions of opinion, recommendations and thinking
processes. It also refers to the evaluation of considerations which may
have an influence on a possible cause of action. Accordingly it has been
concluded that if the information was disclosed it would prejudice the
effective conduct of public affairs by inhibiting the free and frank
exchange of views for the purposes of Deliberation.

On application of the public interest test, the Authority is of the
opinion that it would not be in the public interest to disclose the
information because disclosure would inhibit the free and frank exchange
of views and thinking processes for the purposes of deliberation within
the London Borough of Sutton. Disclosure of the information would also
prejudice the Council's need to maintain the quality of records, working
relationships and a neutral service.

In the preparation of the Consultation Document: "Primary Expansion
Programme: Options for the possible expansion of Primary Schools from
September 2011" dated March 2010, it was known that the Governing Body of
Dorchester Primary School were in favour, in principle to the expansion of
the school.

2) If LB Sutton was already aware in February 2009 that Dorchester School
was seeking expansion then why was the school not included routinely in
the consultation document and the reasons for that non-inclusion?

This was covered in the response and accompanying documents released
previously in response to FOI Request 2119.

The response concluded by providing details of the Appeals process and the
contact details for the Office of the Information Commissioner. You
requested our response be reviewed under the Internal Appeals process for
the following reason:

I am writing to request an internal review of Sutton Borough Council's
handling of my FOI request 'LB Sutton Primary School Expansion
Consultation Document'.

I appreciate the fact that you claim an exemption in releasing the
information requested but I would argue that the it is in the Public
Interest to know what exact discussions went on between all parties given
that Mr Burstow MP was 'claiming' the expansion of Dorchester Primary
School, as a given event, in his party political newsletter distributed to
1000's of households within Sutton in 2009.

Even with these discussions at such a high level the school was NOT
included in the original Consultation document for school expansion and I
wish to understand the rationale behind this fact?

Outcome of Internal Review

To conduct the appeal the Customer Care Manager in conjunction with Legal
Services reviewed the requests received, the responses given and the Act
itself, using the ICO website for guidance. You wish us to reconsider our
use of the Exemption under Section 36 relating to the effective conduct of
public affairs.

The FOIA gives people the right to access information held by public
bodies that before the legislation would have been denied to them.
However, it is not designed to inhibit the proper conduct of a public body
in carrying out its day to day responsibilities. Sutton is committed to
giving its residents the opportunity to be fully informed and engaged in
the decisions which affect them, and encourages resident involvement in
local committees etc. However the local authority may be considering any
number of future scenarios as part of forward planning. A large number of
scenarios may be debated or considered (colloquially "blue sky thinking")
but when these are at a very early stage in the process they cannot be
brought forward more formally without much more information and research.

Local authorities often engage with key local stakeholders such as MPs to
update them on future developments. This information is not necessarily to
be kept completely confidential but the way in which it is used is outside
the control of London Borough of Sutton. If you wish to pursue the matter
further I suggest you contact Mr Burstow's office direct.

At a meeting of the Council's Executive on 7 June 2010 where the Primary
School Expansion Programme was considered it was agreed to publish the
full proposals on the LBS website for the schools put forward (Barrow
Hedges, Beddington Park, Devonshire and Muschamp in addition to
Dorchester). This demonstrates our continuing commitment to transparency
and resident participation in issues of interest to them. As mentioned
above, the Agenda, Reports and Minutes are publicly available on our
website (www.sutton.gov.uk/democracy).

However at the time of your request the consultation was still ongoing,
and in these circumstances the legislation does allow for certain
information to be withheld under Section 36 which is concerned with the
Effective Conduct of Public Affairs. The legislation recognises that in
certain circumstances there is a need to ensure confidentiality to protect
against the inhibition of the free and frank provision of advice or
exchange of views to conduct which would prejudice the effective conduct
of public affairs. Simply put, if during a consultation process, the views
of all those consulted are made public this could discourage participation
and prejudice the outcome of the consultation.

The guidance from the Information Commissioner relating to Section
36(2)(b) acknowledges that "disclosure of information which reveals
internal thinking processes may be detrimental to the ultimate quality of
either policy making or other decision making within a public authority.
Some disclosures may lead to less candid and robust discussions, hard
choices being avoided and ultimately the quality of government being
undermined".

The guidance also acknowledges that the sensitivity of information
diminishes over time, and at the time of your request the information is
still concerning a live issue therefore this does not apply.

You asked about a meeting in "early 2009" and were advised of a meeting
which took place on 23 February 2009 with officers from LBS and teachers
and governors of the school but this meeting did not involve Paul Burstow
MP. He was subsequently briefed in general terms on the emerging strategy
for dealing with the increase in school places in the borough, and not
relating to Dorchester Primary school specifically (Mr Burstow represents
Sutton, Cheam and Worcester Park which includes other schools who may have
been considered as part of the consultation).

I consider that in such circumstances the application of Section 36 is
appropriate as without its protection officers may be inhibited from
giving thought to key issues, due to concerns about their exploratory work
causing unnecessary alarm to residents if it became public knowledge when
at an immature stage. Scarce resources may then be diverted to responding
to resident concerns before plans were fully formulated.

In addition, there is a possibility that this request will also involve
the Environmental Information Regulations (EIR) which has some cross-over
with the FOIA. Environmental information concerns the following:

(a) the state of the elements of the environment, such as air and
atmosphere, water, soil, land, landscape and natural sites including
wetlands, coastal and marine areas, biological diversity and its
components, including genetically modified organisms, and the interaction
among these elements;

(b) factors, such as substances, energy, noise, radiation or waste,
including radioactive waste, emissions, discharges and other releases into
the environment, affecting or likely to affect the elements of the
environment referred to in (a);

(c) measures (including administrative measures), such as policies,
legislation, plans, programmes, environmental agreements, and activities
affecting or likely to affect the elements and factors referred to in (a)
and (b) as well as measures or activities designed to protect those
elements;

(d) reports on the implementation of environmental legislation;

(e) cost-benefit and other economic analyses and assumptions used within
the framework of the measures and activities referred to in (c); and

(f) the state of human health and safety, including the contamination of
the food chain, where relevant, conditions of human life, cultural sites
and built structures inasmuch as they are or may be affected by the state
of the elements of the environment referred to in (a) or, through those
elements, by any of the matters referred to in (b) and (c);

If it is decided to expand the school the documentation you have requested
will be referred to and will therefore be measures (under c) which are
likely to affect the factors in (a) ie the construction of additional
classrooms. The Local Authority therefore believes that the information
you have requested can be withheld under Regulation 12(4)d) of the EIR
because "the request relates to material which is still in the course of
completion, to unfinished documents or to incomplete data". The public
interest test applies but we believe the same arguments apply as used for
Section 36 of the FOIA.

I trust this resolves the matter to your satisfaction, but if you remain
unhappy you may ask the Information Commissioner's Office to consider our
handling of your request. Contact details were provided with our email of
28 May 2010.

Yours sincerely

Sarah Milne

Sarah Milne

Corporate Customer Care Manager

London Borough of Sutton

Tel: 0208 770 5251

www.sutton.gov.uk

show quoted sections