262- 264 Chertsey Lane TW18 3NF - APP/Q3630/C/18/3196414

The request was refused by Runnymede Borough Council.

Dear Runnymede Borough Council,

The petitioner is a Rule 6 Party (R6P) in the above matter. However, RBC is refusing to answer correspondence from the R6P. Accordingly the R6P has no alternative but request the following via this Freedom of Information request.

Please provide all dates between 2007 - 2015 when enforcement and/or planning officers visited the above site. Please differentiate between enforcement and planning officers.

Yours faithfully,

Andrew McInulty

FOI, Runnymede Borough Council

Dear Andrew,

 

This is to acknowledge receipt of your freedom of information request,
reference 22.11.35 received on 21 November 2022.

 

Your request is being dealt with under the terms of the Freedom of
Information Act 2000 and will be answered within twenty working days.

 

Regards

 

FOI Officer | Runnymede Borough Council

E: [1][email address] | [2]www.runnymede.gov.uk

 

[3]Information Governance Privacy Notice

 

We are committed to being transparent about why and how we collect and use
your personal data. Please see our corporate [4]Privacy Statement for
further details.

 

 

show quoted sections

Dear FOI,

By law my FOI should have been responded to by 19th December 2022. Please respond as soon as possible or clarify why the delay has occurred.

Yours sincerely,

Andrew McInulty

FOI, Runnymede Borough Council

Dear Andrew,

 

Thanks for your email.

 

I do apologise.

 

I will liaise with our Planning team for an update and then revert.

 

Kind regards

 

 

FOI Officer | Runnymede Borough Council

E: [1][email address] | [2]www.runnymede.gov.uk

 

[3]Information Governance Privacy Notice

 

 

We are committed to being transparent about why and how we collect and use
your personal data. Please also see our corporate [4]Privacy Statement for
further details.

 

 

 

show quoted sections

Victoria Gibson, Runnymede Borough Council

Dear Mr McInulty,

 

Given how long ago the date period is and its wide range the Council do
not record the information you are requesting in a manner that would
enable it to be accessed in the timeframes allowed. Furthermore, some
aspects of this information are confidential in nature given the
enforcement proceedings taking place at the site.

 

If you are not satisfied with our response, we can offer you an internal
review and the link below takes you to our Complaints and Compliments
home-page within which there is a link to our Freedom of Information
internal review process

 

[1]https://www.runnymede.gov.uk/say/complai...

 

If subsequently you are not satisfied with the Council’s decision you may
apply to the Information Commissioner for a decision.  Generally, the ICO
cannot make a decision unless you have exhausted the complaints procedure
provided by the Council.

 

The Information Commissioner can be contacted at the following address:

 

The Information Commissioner

Wycliffe House

Water Lane

Wilmslow

SK9 5AS

 

[2]https://ico.org.uk/

 

Regards

 

FOI Officer | Runnymede Borough Council

E: [3][email address] | [4]www.runnymede.gov.uk

 

[5]Information Governance Privacy Notice

 

show quoted sections

Dear Victoria Gibson,
This response is a nonsense. There is no need for RBC to expose the names of officers or any details, just the dates when they visited the site. Moreover, I have in the past, and can provide the evidence, received such information. RBC is also bound in law to keep a register so the time factor doesn't wash. To use the current appeal on the land as a further excuse is unacceptable for that is the purpose it was sought. I can put many of the dates together myself, including names and reasons for the visits, but nee(ed) information about one specific year. Clearly the obfuscation at RBC goes on with a like for like replacement for Christine Kelso. I just trust one day we residents can persuade the appropriate authorities to hold a public Inquiry into into the goings on at RBC for the past decade or so.
I might add when last 'exhausting' the RBC complaints procedure 3 senior officers reviewing a CLEUD decision declared it sound, only later to be revoked after Head of Legal Services agreed with residents the application contained false and withheld information.
Yours sincerely,

Andrew McInulty