Plans

Stuart Hardwicke CARRUTHERS made this Freedom of Information request to South Norfolk District Council

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

From: Stuart Hardwicke CARRUTHERS

4 September 2008

Dear Sir or Madam,

On how many occassions has the South Norfolk District Council staff
over the last six years changed plans related to its planning
enforcement functions and/or high hedges functions after the
correct extent of the land has been identified by its professional
staff to the elected representatives and they have approved such
actions - and the Council officers on the advice of its staff have
then issued different plans (identifying different extents of
land).

Copies of all the plans as authorised by elected representatives
and/or professional staff are requested that have been subject to
change following a decision, and copies of all plans modified by
the Council staff (including the Council solicitor) that changed
the extent of the land affected by a Council notice are requested
(i.e. copies of the plan authorised and a copy of the plan modified
by the Council staff) for the last six years.

Yours faithfully,

Stuart Hardwicke Carruthers

Link to this

From: Right2Know
South Norfolk District Council

4 September 2008

Thank you for your request which is being considered. You may be aware that we have 20 working days in which to respond to FOI requests and you will therefore hear from me again by 1 October 2008 or earlier if possible.

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 some or all of the information may 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.

There may be a fee payable for ‘reasonable disbursement’ costs such as postage and photocopying. 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.

If you have any queries or concerns then please let me know. If you do contact us again concerning this request, please quote FOI 08-136.

Joanna Kitchener
Scrutiny and Information Rights Manager
South Norfolk Council
Long Stratton, Norwich
NR15 2XE
01508 533602
www.south-norfolk.gov.uk

show quoted sections

Link to this

From: Right2Know
South Norfolk District Council

8 September 2008

Dear Mr Carruthers

Further to your FOI request below, I am now in a position to reply.

In order for me to answer your query, please clarify exactly what recorded
information you are seeking copies of as your request is unclear. If the
records relate to planning applications, then I can advise all our
applications going back several years are on our website and I attach the
link for your convenience:

[1]http://www.south-norfolk.gov.uk/planning...

If you can provide me with some more specific information to assist me in
any search, then I will continue with this request; otherwise I shall take
no further action.

Joanna Kitchener
Scrutiny and Information Rights Manager
South Norfolk Council
Long Stratton, Norwich
NR15 2XE
01508 533602
www.south-norfolk.gov.uk

show quoted sections

Link to this

From: Stuart Hardwicke CARRUTHERS

15 September 2008

Dear Right2Know,

the request relates to Enforcement Notices (Listed Buildings and
Planning), Certificates of lawfulness, High Hedges and Tree
Preservation Notices. I am only refering to notices actually issued
by the Council itself. I would anticipate that the Solicitor to the
Council shall have copies.

Yours sincerely,

Stuart Hardwicke Carruthers

Link to this

From: Right2Know
South Norfolk District Council

25 September 2008

Attachment Complaints Leaflet.doc
24K Download View as HTML

Dear Mr Carruthers

Further to your FOI request below, I should advise you that all
instructions by Council committees to take proceedings, such as
enforcement notices, are subject to legal advice. Whilst every effort is
made to present reliable information to elected members when making such
decisions, there may be some occasions when further information becomes
available after the committee giving instructions but before the notice is
issued, and in such cases the most accurate information will be used.

Such instances are not recorded centrally, and it would be necessary to go
through every single record where such action has been authorised. Your
request for information will not therefore be processed. This is because
the cost of locating and retrieving the information would greatly exceed
the “appropriate” limited stated in the Freedom of Information (Fees
and Appropriate Limit) Regulations 2004. In accordance with the Freedom
of Information Act 2000 this letter acts as a Refusal Notice.

You have a right of appeal against our decision. In the first instance
this appeal must be internal and we enclose a copy of our complaints
procedure. We hope that you will not feel it necessary to invoke an
appeal, but if you do we will take every care to re-assess your request
and let you have our findings.

<<Complaints Leaflet.doc>>

If it is a particular planning enforcement or high hedges notice you are
interested in, then I should advise you that under the Freedom of
Information Act 200, section 21 (1), this is information which is
reasonably accessible to you as, as stated in my previous email, all such
notices are published on our website.

Joanna Kitchener
Scrutiny and Information Rights Manager
South Norfolk Council
Long Stratton, Norwich
NR15 2XE
01508 533602
www.south-norfolk.gov.uk

show quoted sections

Link to this

From: Stuart Hardwicke CARRUTHERS

25 September 2008

Dear Right2Know,

In the case of Listed Buildings this is impossible to be the case.
it is determined by the Secretary of State not the Council
solicitor... This falls outside the jurisdiction of the Secretary
of State Communities and Local Government.. (apart from High
Hedges). It has already in at least one case been identified to the
Council solicitor that they were wrong.

The Council solicitor must have the records and authorisation
identifying that they can change the boundaries of a listed
building from the Secretary of State on behalf of the Council, just
as they must have written authorisation in relation to High Hedge
notices that have been changed by themselves.

The Council solicitor should be able to identify these instances,
and also provide copies of their authorisation to act in this way.

Yours sincerely,

Stuart Hardwicke CARRUTHERS

Link to this

From: Right2Know
South Norfolk District Council

25 September 2008

Dear Mr Carruthers

I have nothing to add to my previous email.

Joanna Kitchener
Scrutiny and Information Rights Manager
South Norfolk Council
Long Stratton, Norwich
NR15 2XE
01508 533602
www.south-norfolk.gov.uk

show quoted sections

Link to this

From: Stuart Hardwicke CARRUTHERS

25 September 2008

Dear Right2Know,

Therefore I request review.. the Head of Paid Service for the
Council doubtless has written instructions for the Council
solicitor to act in the way that they have.. and if they don't that
will be identified through the review.

Yours sincerely,

Stuart Hardwicke CARRUTHERS

Link to this

From: Right2Know
South Norfolk District Council

26 September 2008

Dear Mr Carruthers

Further to your email below, it appears you may be mistaken as to the
purpose of the review. The internal review is solely to examine the
exemption on which I relied when not supplying the information, to
consider the reasons relating to that exemption, to take into account the
legislation backing that exemption and then decide to either uphold my
decision not to release, or to not uphold my decision and order the
information to be released.

It will not, and it not part of the panel's remit to consider any
procedures, policies or ways of working of the Council. That is
absolutely outside the remit of the FOI panel.

May I draw your attention to another FOI you raised and a comment posted
by the moderator on the "What do they know" site which I believe is
relevant to this issue which stated:

"That they may be legally obliged to have such a document is irrelevant to
FOI, quite a separate matter."

When you state therefore that issues will be identified by the review, I
can confirm that will not be the case. I hope this is clear. Please let
me know if you wish to continue with the review.

Joanna Kitchener
Scrutiny and Information Rights Manager
South Norfolk Council
Long Stratton, Norwich
NR15 2XE
01508 533602
www.south-norfolk.gov.uk

show quoted sections

Link to this

From: Stuart Hardwicke CARRUTHERS

26 September 2008

Dear Right2Know,

Yes I would like the review to proceed. I draw your attention to
LORD CHANCELLOR’S CODE OF PRACTICE ON THE MANAGEMENT OF RECORDS
UNDER SECTION 46 OF THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000.

I would also refer you to s45. The issue of the review is to
identify why the Council Planning and Legal staff habitually change
plans associated with enforcement notices and certificates of
lawfulness.

The Council's response will be needed by the Secretary of State..
who will be asked to consider the acts of the Council. Obviously if
you have no record of the acts of turpitude.. that will formally be
identified.. as will any action that the Council intends to stop
the practice, as well as what it intends to do about the staff that
act in this way.

Obviously, the Council can take into account its failure to
maintain records as part of the review and the acts of its
solicitor. It is entirely the Council's choice (as defined by the
Local Government Act 1972).

Yours sincerely,

Stuart Hardwicke CARRUTHERS

Link to this

From: Right2Know
South Norfolk District Council

30 September 2008

Dear Mr Carruthers

I can confirm that your request for an internal review of my decision not to release information because the cost of locating and retrieving the information would exceed the “appropriate” limits stated in the Freedom of Information (Fees and Appropriate Limit) Regulations 2004 will take place on Thursday 2 October. The review panel will not consider any other aspect of the request.

If the review panel finds that we have not disclosed information that we should have released, then we will release the information to you as soon as possible after that panel meeting. If we are satisfied that we have followed all the procedures correctly and that the original decision will be unchanged, we will advise you in writing. You will hear from us by Wednesday 8 October with our decision (or earlier if possible).

Joanna Kitchener
Scrutiny and Information Rights Manager
South Norfolk Council
Long Stratton, Norwich
NR15 2XE
01508 533602
www.south-norfolk.gov.uk

show quoted sections

Link to this

From: Stuart Hardwicke CARRUTHERS

30 September 2008

Dear Right2Know,

Many thanks for your reply. The issue is not in relation to s45 of
the FoI.

The issue relates to s46 of the FoI, and the Lord Chancellors
guidance. Please add the failure of the Council to maintain records
about its Electoral Registration and Returning Officer to the
list... to which you can also add what appears to be a clumsy
rewrite of the Records Society GB guidance and identification by
the SNDC that it was policy in about 2002 (Carden.. Ward was lead
officer).. as the actual guidance is demonstrably not being
followed.

You can also add the failure of SHORTMAN to properly identify his
costs to the High Court to this.. (accompanied as well as his and
WARDS false assertions about the District Auditor (you already have
a copy of their letter identifying that their assertions were
false).

The costs should be minimal as you are aware in relation to the
requests.. and all that is needed is the written authorisation to
WHITHAM (signatory to both plans) and anticipate SHORTMAN must have
identified that WHITHAM could change them.. following instruction
(again this must have been a political decision).

Shortman as you are aware is VERY AWARE OF THE COUNCIL'S FAILURE TO
APPOINT AN ERO or A RO in 2002.. as are quite a number of Norfolk
County Councillors.

Please identify by name the people acting for the Council and if
they should be officers the delegation on which they rely from the
Council (I can find nothing in your constitution that this function
is delegated).

This is strictly a s46 determination. You are already aware that
there has already been a determination by the ICO in relation to
High court Costs.. and that Shortman and Ward admitted that their
costs were false... and that this was then subject to an additional
report by themselves in February 2008 to the Council.. where they
continued their false record keeping. This was also a political
decision - and there shall be a record.

Yours sincerely,

Stuart Hardwicke CARRUTHERS

Link to this

From: Right2Know
South Norfolk District Council

1 October 2008

Dear Mr Carruthers

As I have stated before, you appear to hold a completely erroneous view of the internal appeals procedure. The panel will not be looking at any of the additional points you raise below, it will be solely and only be considering whether obtaining the information you have requested in terms of the enforcement cases, would exceed the “appropriate” limits stated in the Freedom of Information (Fees and Appropriate Limit) Regulations 2004. No other issue or consideration will be looked at.

If the panel do uphold my decision, then an estimate of the cost (which will be above £450.00) will be given to you to enable you to consider whether you wish to pay the Council to extract the information for you. It is worth considering that the answer may of course be that no cases fall into the category you have outlined.

I hope this clarifies the situation.

Joanna Kitchener
Scrutiny and Information Rights Manager
South Norfolk Council
Long Stratton, Norwich
NR15 2XE
01508 533602
www.south-norfolk.gov.uk

show quoted sections

Link to this

From: Stuart Hardwicke CARRUTHERS

1 October 2008

Dear Right2Know,

Then in which case the Council has failed to follow the s46
guidance of the Lord Chancellor. Electoral Registration and
Returning Officer records are statutory.

The other issues ensure accountability. Obviously I would be quite
pleased with an s46 breech admission by SNDC. The costs of that
would be well over £450. You have already identified that your
record keeping does not conform with the guidance of the Record
Management Society GB - and the political leadership has a copy of
the document's identifying that the Council's policy (project
managed under the control of the Council's Monitoring Officer - and
their Deputy was flawed (i.e. re-written)

Yours sincerely,

Stuart Hardwicke CARRUTHERS

Link to this

From: Right2Know
South Norfolk District Council

2 October 2008

Attachment 081002 FOI Review panel decision Carruthers.doc
82K Download View as HTML

Dear Mr Carruthers

As you know, we had convened an internal review panel to examine my
decision not to release certain information to you relating to your
request received on 4 September. The panel met on 2 October and I am now
in a position to let you know their decision.

I attach a copy of the decision notice, but essentially the panel upheld
my decision and felt that the cost of retrieving the information you have
requested would be about £7,500 and take around 300 hours.

<<081002 FOI Review panel decision Carruthers.doc>>

If you are still dissatisfied, you have the right of appeal to the
Information Commissioner and I attach the contact details below for your
information:

Office of the Information Commissioner
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire SK9 5AF
Tel: 01625 545745
Email: [email address]
Website: [1]http://www.ico.gov.uk/

Joanna Kitchener
Scrutiny and Information Rights Manager
South Norfolk Council
Long Stratton, Norwich
NR15 2XE
01508 533602
www.south-norfolk.gov.uk

show quoted sections

Link to this

From: Stuart Hardwicke CARRUTHERS

2 October 2008

Dear Right2Know,

Many thanks for your letter with accompanying refusal notice. The
participants in the panel are noted with interest as I had not
anticipated that the volume of revisionist decision making by the
SNDC was quite as great as this.

The issues can now proceed - and I understand are with the ICO
already. It is identified to you that as far as I am aware that
your panel not a valid decision making body.. as I don't think as
also identified that the Council has delegated this decision making
to the Council.

The costs should have been minimal.. as each instance should have
been accompanied by a report by the Council's monitoring officer.

Yours sincerely,

Stuart Hardwicke CARRUTHERS

Link to this

Things to do with this request

Anyone:
South Norfolk District Council only: