Request by LB Sutton to Dorchester Primary School to increase form entry size

Dear James,

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000 - INFORMATION REQUEST - REF NO - 1477.

I acknowledge your request for information received on Thursday 9th
April 2009.

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.

There may a fee 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

Natalie

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

Dear Mr Martin

I am writing in response to your Freedom of Information request related to
Dorchester Primary School.

I can confirm that an informal exploratory meeting was held with the
Headteacher and Chair of Governors of Dorchester Primary School to discuss
the possibility of the school expanding to 3 forms of entry in the future.

No formal request has been made for the school to expand and nothing has
been put in writing to the Governing Body. At this stage we have asked
that they agree to us carrying out a feasibility study. We plan to review
the position in the autumn when we have a further year of birth rate data.

Regards

Louise

Louise Groves

Head of Capital and Planning

London Borough of Sutton

Tel: 0208 770 6553

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.

Dear James,

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000 - INFORMATION REQUEST - REF NO - 1502

I acknowledge your request for information received on Tuesday 21^st April
2009.

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.

There may a fee 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

Natalie

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

Dear Mr Martin

Further to your freedom of information request relating to Dorchester
primary school, please find below the responses to your questions:

1) The informal exploratory meeting was held on the 23rd February 2009.

2) It was only myself from the Council attending that meeting, as it was
simply an informal discussion about the future of the school.

3) I regularly keep our MPs informed about our plans to meet the rising
birth rate in the Borough, through my Director, Ian Birnbaum. Mr
Burstow was not provided with details of individual school meetings, but
was given a briefing regarding how we were planning to respond to the
rising birth rate.

4) We can confirm that information is held but 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, we are 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
Yours sincerely

Louise Groves

Louise Groves
Head of Capital and Planning
Tel: 0208 770 6553
[mobile number]

show quoted sections

Dear Mr Martin,

I am writing in response to your follow-up email of the 14th May.

We confirmed to Paul Burstow that we have had an informal discussion
with the head and chair of Dorchester Primary School asking if they are
willing for us to undertake a feasibility study, along with several
other schools in the Borough, to consider whether it might be feasible
to expand the school. If the feasibility study shows it is a good
option, and if the birth rate continues to rise, we would then, and only
then, ask them to consider expansion for 2011. At this time, we would
also undertake a formal statutory consultation exercise, which would
fully involve the public, parents, the neighbours etc.

We are unable to comment on your assumption that Mr Burstow may have
"misinformed" or "misunderstood" the information provided by Ian
Birnbaum and trust the FOI request to the House of Commons, to which you
refer, will clarify this position for you.

In the circumstances we do not consider that the information is in the
public domain and therefore maintain our use of the section 36(2)b)ii)
exemption under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

If you are unhappy with our handling of your request, or if we have
issued you with a refusal notice to your request you may request an
internal appeal. The Authority is not legally obliged to have an
appeals process but Section 45 of the Code of Practice recommends
Authorities to have one. The appeal will be impartial and conducted by
someone different 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. If you remain unhappy you should refer to the Office of
the Information Commissioner, via their website www.ico.gov.uk.

Yours sincerely

Louise Groves

Louise Groves
Head of Capital and Planning
Tel: 0208 770 6553

show quoted sections

Dear Mr Martin

I am sorry you are unhappy with our responses to your FOI requests. At
London Borough of Sutton we support the principle of transparency and aim
to provide information requested by our residents to the best of our
ability. However the FOIA does allow for circumstances where it is not
appropriate to disclose information that is requested by the application
of an exemption. In all cases the "public interest test" must be applied
when making the decision whether to disclose.

Background - original request (ref 1477)

On 9 April you sent an FOI request via the Whatdotheyknow website to
London Borough of Sutton as follows:

I am in possession of information published by Paul Burstow MP indicating
that Dorchester Primary school has been asked to consider increasing the
form entry size for the school in response to an increased demand on
primary school places in the local area.

i) Would you confirm if it is LB Sutton's intention to ask (or has
indeed asked) the Governing Body at Dorchester Primary School to consider
an increase in the school's form entry which is currently a 2 form entry
school?

ii) Please provide copies of any correspondence sent by LB Sutton

to Dorchester Primary School in relation to this matter.

This was given the reference 1477 and acknowledged the same day.

Paul Burstow, the local MP for Sutton and Cheam had included a small
paragraph about Dorchester School in his Spring 2009 Worcester Park
newsletter following a briefing he had received about Sutton's plans to
address the impact on schools of the rising birth rate. On 20 April,
Louise Groves, Head of Capital and Planning of our Children, Young People
and Learning Services Group (CYPLS) responded to you as follows:

I can confirm that an informal exploratory meeting was held with the
Headteacher and Chair of Governors of Dorchester Primary School to discuss
the possibility of the school expanding to 3 forms of entry in the future.

No formal request has been made for the school to expand and nothing has
been put in writing to the Governing Body. At this stage we have asked
that they agree to us carrying out a feasibility study. We plan to review
the position in the autumn when we have a further year of birth rate data.

Subsequent request (1502)

On 21 April you submitted a follow up request in response to Ms Groves's
reply asking for the following information:

1) The date of 'informal exploratory meeting' held between the Head

Teacher and the Chair of Governors.

2) The Council officers also present at that meeting?

3) Which council official or department passed on details of the

meeting and the contents of the discussion to Mr Paul Burstow MP

(As published in his most recent newsletter)?

4. Please provide copies of all correspondence and records held by

LB Sutton in relation to this matter.

This was considered to be a new request and was given the reference 1502.
On 14 May Louise Groves responded to points 1, 2 and 3 as below, but
explained that disclosure of the correspondence was refused under Section
36 (2) b) ii) which is the section which relates to the effective conduct
of public affairs.

1) The informal exploratory meeting was held on the 23rd February 2009.

2) It was only myself from the Council attending that meeting, as it was
simply an informal discussion about the future of the school.

3) I regularly keep our MPs informed about our plans to meet the rising
birth rate in the Borough, through my Director, Ian Birnbaum. Mr Burstow
was not provided with details of individual school meetings, but was given
a briefing regarding how we were planning to respond to the rising birth
rate.

4) We can confirm that information is held but 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, we are 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.

Further follow up questions

On the same day you responded with a number of further questions and
opinions relating to the responses you had received, including your
opinion that Mr Burstow's newsletter meant this information was
effectively in the public domain. You also mentioned that you were aware
an FOI request had been made to Mr Burstow at the House of Commons asking
for further clarification.

The FOIA only requires us to provide information which we hold and
therefore does not require us to provide thoughts or opinions. Mrs Groves
therefore could not comment on Mr Burstow's views. It also put our
officers in a difficult position in respect of information provided to an
MP as it concerns his constituents. Mrs Groves responded on 19 May as
follows:

We confirmed to Paul Burstow that we have had an informal discussion with
the head and chair of Dorchester Primary School asking if they are willing
for us to undertake a feasibility study, along with several other schools
in the Borough, to consider whether it might be feasible to expand the
school. If the feasibility study shows it is a good option, and if the
birth rate continues to rise, we would then, and only then, ask them to
consider expansion for 2011. At this time, we would also undertake a
formal statutory consultation exercise, which would fully involve the
public, parents, the neighbours etc.

We are unable to comment on your assumption that Mr Burstow may have
"misinformed" or "misunderstood" the information provided by Ian Birnbaum
and trust the FOI request to the House of Commons, to which you refer,
will clarify this position for you.

The email concluded by upholding the use of Section 36(2)b)ii) and issued
a refusal notice giving you details of your right to an internal appeal.

Outcome of the appeal

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 these are at a very early stage in the process, and cannot be brought
forward more formally without much more information and research.

It is sensible that as the birth rate appears to be rising for the first
time in 10 years, a local authority begins considering how this will
impact on school places in the future. But plans are at a very early stage
and before any decisions are taken there will be a great deal of research
and consultation. Several schools in the borough may be under
consideration as having potential for expansion and the first step in this
process would be a feasibility study. If this goes ahead parents,
residents and other interested parties will be informed, but there is no
benefit in doing so until the situation is clearer.

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 the plans were fully formulated.

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.

It may now be considered in the public domain that Dorchester school was
one of a number of schools in the borough who have been asked to consider
participation in a future feasibility study considering expansion of
school places. However I do not believe disclosure of the correspondence
relating to this between the local authority and the school should be
disclosed for the reasons mentioned above. The degree of concern that this
issue has caused you suggests that careful control of the way information
is presented to the public is sensible to avoid causing unnecessary alarm.

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);

Several schools are currently being asked to conduct a feasibility study
to consider whether it may be feasible to expand the school. If it is
decided to expand the school these studies will be referred to and will
therefore be measures (under c) which are likely to affect the factors in
(a) ie additional classrooms. We believe that there an exemption which
can be applied to the release of the information you request under
Regulation 12(4)d) "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 therefore do not uphold your appeal. If you remain unhappy you may now
refer to the Office of the Information Commissioner who can be contacted
as follows:

Office of the Information Commissioner

Wycliffe House, Water Lane

Wilmslow

Cheshire

SK9 5AF

Telephone: 01625 545 745

www.ico.gov.uk

Sarah Milne

Corporate Customer Care Manager

Chief Executive's Group

London Borough of Sutton

Tel: 0208 770 5251

show quoted sections