34 Arkwright Road [18/00749/FUL] - Pre-application advice

The request was partially successful.

Dear Croydon Borough Council,

I note from the Application Form that pre-application advice [ref 17/06001/PRE] was provided on 31 November 2017, which apparently included the following comments:

1.The building line identified is not the established one so the proposal must bring it more in line with the prevailing urban grain.
2.You are strongly recommended to align the architectural language of the rear elevation with the front elevation.
3.You are requested to remove the inset gable from the front elevation.
4.You are requested to reduce the number of windows at the flank elevations.
5.You are strongly recommended that a 3 bedroom unit is incorporated within the scheme and ideally at the to reduce the number of windows at the flank
elevations.
6.The private amenity space provided for unit 1 is located at the front of the property and adjoining the flank windows at number 32 Arkwright road is not
consider suitable.
7.The front area will need to be revised to incorporate further more soft landscaping.
8.The cycle storage should be incorporate at the building.
9.The number of the units and parking spaces must be reduced.
10.The access to the site appears to be too narrow.

Please provide any information relating to Mr Naylor’s advice, including but not restricted to copies of the following:
• the completed Request for Pre-Application Advice form,
• evidence of fee payment,
• the Applicant's cover letter,
• letters/emails of consultation WITH internal/external consultees,
• comments/observations BY internal/external consultees,
• details of any meeting arrangements,
• notes of any pre-application meeting[s], and
• the case officer’s advice letter[s] or email[s].

Yours faithfully,

Stephen Whiteside

Information, Croydon Borough Council

Dear Mr Whiteside,

Thank you for your email.

I have passed your enquiry back to our planning team and will get back to you as soon as I receive a response.

Kind regards.

Jo

Jo Welch-Hall
Information Support Officer

Resources Department
Customer Transformation and Communications Services
7th Floor, Zone B
Bernard Weatherill House
8 Mint Walk
Croydon CR0 1EA

show quoted sections

Freedom of Information, Croydon Borough Council

 

Dear Mr Whiteside

 

Freedom of Information Request

 

Thank you for your recent request.

 

Your request is being considered and you will receive a response within
the statutory timescale of 20 working days, subject to the application of
any exemptions. Where consideration is being given to exemptions the 20
working day timescale may be extended to a period considered reasonable
depending on the nature and circumstances of your request. In such cases
you will be notified and, where possible, a revised time-scale will be
indicated. In all cases we shall attempt to deal with your request at the
earliest opportunity.

 

There may be a fee payable for the retrieval, collation and provision of
the information requested where the request exceeds the statutory limit or
where disbursements exceed £450. In such cases you will be informed in
writing and your request will be suspended until we receive payment from
you or your request is modified and/or reduced.

 

Your request may require either full or partial transfer to another public
authority. You will be informed if your request is transferred.

 

If we are unable to provide you with the information requested we will
notify you of this together with the reason(s) why and details of how you
may appeal (if appropriate).

 

Please note that the directorate team may contact you for further
information where we believe that the request is not significantly clear
for us to respond fully.

 

 

Yours sincerely

 

Joanne Welch-Hall

FOI Co-ordinator

Croydon Council

 

Information in relation to the London Borough of Croydon is available
at [1]http://www.croydonobservatory.org/. Also responses to previous
Freedom of Information requests can also be found on the following link

[2]https://croydondata.wordpress.com/ Council services, online, 24/7
www.croydon.gov.uk/myaccount Download our new free My Croydon app for a
faster, smarter and better way to report local issues
www.croydon.gov.uk/app From 1 October 2015, it is a legal requirement for
all privately rented properties in Croydon to be licensed. Landlords
without a licence could face fines of up to £20,000. For more information
and to apply for a licence visit www.croydon.gov.uk/betterplacetorent
Please use this web site address to view the council's e-mail disclaimer -
http://www.croydon.gov.uk/email-disclaimer

References

Visible links
1. http://www.croydonobservatory.org/
2. https://croydondata.wordpress.com/

Stephen Whiteside

Dear Freedom of Information,

34 Arkwright Road [18/00749/FUL] - Pre-application advice'

By law, the authority should normally have responded to this request promptly and by 27 March at the latest.

There are similar delays with regard to similar requests on (very) similar applications. In the circumstances, if I do not receive ALL the requested information by close of business on 5 April 2018 I will take THIS matter direct to the Information Commissioner. I will also consider taking the same course with the other long-delayed requests.

Yours sincerely,

Stephen Whiteside

Stephen Whiteside

Dear Croydon Borough Council,

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

Since the Information Commissioner is unlikely to consider a complaint about this matter until I have exhausted the Council's internal complaints 'procedure', I am writing to request an internal review of Croydon Borough Council's handling of my FOI request '34 Arkwright Road [18/00749/FUL] - Pre-application advice'.

I have so far received NOTHING of relevance from the Council.
Please provide ALL the relevant information, without further undue delay.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/3...

Yours faithfully,

Stephen Whiteside

Stephen Whiteside

Dear Croydon Borough Council,

FOI/EIR Request submitted 26 February 2018
34 Arkwright Road [18/00749/FUL] - Pre-application advice

Regulation 11(4) of the Environmental Information Regulations requires that the Council SHOULD have notified me of its decision on my request for an internal review “... as soon as possible and no later than 40 working days after the date of receipt of the representations.”

Those 40 working days have now been exceeded and I have therefore complained to the Information Commissioner about the Council’s handling of this Request.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/3...

Yours faithfully,

Stephen Whiteside

Stephen Whiteside left an annotation ()

The Information Commissioner has today written to the Council, 'asking' that the information requested is provided within 10 working days.

Freedom of Information, Croydon Borough Council

3 Attachments

Dear Mr Whiteside

 

Freedom of Information Request

Please see attached the council's response to your Freedom of Information
request.

Yours sincerely

 

Steven Borg

FOI Coordinator

Croydon Council

 

Council services, online, 24/7 www.croydon.gov.uk/myaccount Download our
new free My Croydon app for a faster, smarter and better way to report
local issues www.croydon.gov.uk/app From 1 October 2015, it is a legal
requirement for all privately rented properties in Croydon to be licensed.
Landlords without a licence could face fines of up to £20,000. For more
information and to apply for a licence visit
www.croydon.gov.uk/betterplacetorent Please use this web site address to
view the council's e-mail disclaimer -
http://www.croydon.gov.uk/email-disclaimer

Stephen Whiteside

Dear Croydon Borough Council,

Your Ref: F/CRT/10009165 ICO Ref:FER0754718

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

I am writing to request an internal review of Croydon Borough Council's handling of my FOI request '34 Arkwright Road [18/00749/FUL] - Pre-application advice'.

I refer to the Council’s VERY late response of 20 June 2018.

REDACTION ??

Yet again, I have been told that:
“...It has been the custom and practice for the Council to generally only release the names of staff down to ‘Head of Service’ level, which the Council considers meets the Transparency Code issued by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. Furthermore the council considers that this position is consistent with guidance issued by the Information Commissioner, including a Decision Notice issued in respect of a similar request FS50276863....”

This ‘suggests’ that information has been redacted or withheld completely with regard to ‘personal data’, though I note that there has been NO specific exception claimed.

Some of the disclosed documents appear to have been ‘amended’ in order to remove data, but there is nothing to indicate precisely WHERE data has been removed.

It also appears that information OTHER THAN personal data has been removed. [The ‘Meeting Notes’ document for instance, has only ‘Subject’ remaining from what I believe is the ‘header’ to an email which would also include ‘From’, ‘Sent’, ‘To’ and [possibly] ‘cc’. ]

- The Council's ‘blanket approach’ to redaction

As I understand it, Regulation 12(3) and 13 CAN have the effect of prohibiting the Council from disclosing third party personal data, but ONLY if this would breach the Data Protection Act.

Regulation 12(2) establishes a presumption in favour of disclosure. If the Council has established that an exception is engaged, it is THEN necessary to weigh the competing public interests, per regulation 12(1)(b). That is, the public interest in disclosing the information as weighed against the public interest in maintaining the exception.

I believe that the Council has neither shown WHY an exception is engaged in THIS case, nor carried out the Public Interest [PI] test required by the legislation.

It is also pertinent to note that DN relied upon, was issued in respect of a request made and handled under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 [FOIA]. The Response of 20 June makes clear however, that THIS request has rightly been considered under the provisions of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 [EIR] and the ‘presumption in favour of disclosure’ should therefore apply.

- Decision Notice - ICO Case Reference FS50276863

I do not believe that the ICO Decision Notice [DN] referred to [FS50276863] DOES relate to a ‘similar request’. I also note that, according to the ICO website that the Decision Notice “...is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal....”

Paragraph 5 of the Decision Notice [DN] on which the Council relies, confirms that initially the FSA claimed that its policy was “… not … to disclose details of staff below Head of Department level.” Paragraph 13 however, explains that “During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation …The FSA agreed to disclose the names of its employees who worked at the level of manager …. The FSA accepted the Commissioner’s preliminary view that such senior individuals within the organisation had a high level of accountability and responsibility which warranted the disclosure of their names”.

The ICO therefore does NOT adopt the simplified approach suggested by Croydon. Instead, the DN illustrates that for a request - which is not a routine matter for which a ‘formula’ is the only practical approach - ALL 3 fairness tests - or factors* - that the ICO has described need to be applied (see also the supplementary factors at paragraph 48). Their application must have specific regard to the situation.

The three factors ICO considers in judging fairness in disclosure:
1. the individual’s reasonable expectations of what would happen to their information;
2. the consequences of disclosure (if it would cause any unnecessary or unjustified damage or distress to the individual concerned); and
3. the balance between the rights and freedoms of the data subject and the legitimate interests of the public.

The supplementary factors that should be considered:
4. the seniority of the role
5. whether the role is public facing
6. whether the position involves a significant level of personal judgement and individual responsibility.

‘Seniority’ is therefore only ONE factor and the Council has NOT demonstrated the weighing of ALL the ‘factors’ set out by the ICO in guidance.

- Local Government Transparency Code 2015 [DCLG]

Although the Code appears to deal essentially with pre-defined datasets and a routine publishing scheme, paragraph 6 helpfully explains “This Code ensures local people can now see ... how decisions are taken and who is taking them …”.

Paragraph 15 confirms that "….The Data Protection Act 1998 does not restrict or inhibit information being published about councillors or senior local authority officers because of the legitimate public interest in the scrutiny of such senior individuals and decision makers…".

As set out above, the DN relied upon explicitly demonstrates that the Code level of seniority was NOT accepted by the ICO as a sufficient basis for determining disclosure. That is because the decision-making powers/public facing nature etc of officers’ roles and public interest must all be weighed up.

Paragraph 22 of the Code also usefully clarifies that “… Where information would otherwise fall within one of the exemptions from disclosure, for instance, under … the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 … Local authorities should start from the PRESUMPTION OF OPENNESS AND DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION [my emphasis], and not rely on exemptions to withhold information unless absolutely necessary.”

- Officers of the Council

Although I understand why those senior employees in scope for the Code are most likely to ‘tick the box’ against the three factors (esp. 1 and 3) much (if not all) of the time, that does NOT automatically 'eliminate' everyone else. It must depend on their role and the specific circumstances... and how the relevant ‘factors’ apply to those.

I believe that there may well be circumstances [like here] where it IS entirely appropriate to release the details of more junior officers, particularly [but not only] when those details are already in the public domain. As the ICO makes clear, “… there is a public interest in fully understanding the reasons for public authorities’ decisions, to remove any suspicion of manipulating the facts, or ‘spin’. For example, this may well be a public interest argument for disclosing advice given to decision makers. …”

There is a legitimate interest in public disclosure of the details of officers (usually ‘professionals’) who provide ‘specialist’ advice on particular aspects of a planning application, since this helps inform a case officer’s recommendation and thereby influence the ultimate decision. Such disclosures will therefore have the wider benefit of increasing public confidence in the reliability of the Council’s consultation and decision-making processes.

The information provided as part of this request clearly illustrates the significant reliance of the case officer on the specialist advice provided by the Council’s ‘Spatial Planning’, Trees’ and ‘Transportation’ teams, with their observations being repeated, often verbatim, within Mr Naylor’s response.

FOR REVIEW

+++ I believe this Council’s approach amounts to a form of “blanket redaction” and I do not agree that this position “…is consistent with guidance issued by the Information Commissioner …” and/or the “ Decision Notice issued in respect of … FS50276863]…”. Indeed, I believe that both ICO guidance AND elements of the Notice strongly suggest that the Council should reconsider its position with regard to redaction of ‘personal data’ in this case and more generally.

+++ THIS request is being considered under the EIR and the ‘presumption in favour of disclosure’ should be applied. I believe the onus is [still] on the Council to clearly demonstrate WHY, in THIS case, it would be unfair to disclose the redacted information. If, for any piece of that information, they cannot so demonstrate, then the information should be disclosed.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/3...

Yours faithfully,

Stephen Whiteside

Derby, James, Croydon Borough Council

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Whiteside

I write further to your email below requesting internal review of your request for information. I have now completed my investigation of your complaint. In undertaking this internal review, I have examined your request for information contained in your email of 26 February 2018. I have also examined the provisions of the access to information legislations, relevant guidance notes and decision notices from the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) and the First Tier Tribunal. I have then set out my decision as to whether or not the Council complied with its obligations under the relevant legislation.

Your request for information relates to information contained in pre planning application [ref 17/06001/PRE. Regulation 2 (1 a) of the Environmental Information Regulations (EIR) defines environmental information as "any information in written, visual, aural, electronic or any other material form on—
(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). Your request therefore falls within the remit of the EIR.

Regulation 5 of the EIR provides that where a public authority that holds environmental information it shall make it available on request and shall be made available as soon as possible and no later than 20 working days after the date of receipt of the request.

I note your request for information was received by the Council on 26 February 2018; you are therefore entitled to a response not later than 26 March 2018. Unfortunately you were not provided with a response within the statutory 20 working days, I am therefore of the view that the Council is in breach of Regulation 5 (2) of the EIR.

Following my investigation of your complaint, I understand you have sent a number of EIR requests to the Council all relating to the pre planning applications. The FOI/EIR team continue to work tirelessly with processing these and all other requests received. These requests continue to put additional pressures on the FOI/EIR team and other services. I understand a response was sent to you on 20 June 2018. (see attached). I apologise for any inconvenience the delay may have caused you.

If you remain dissatisfied with this decision, you may refer the matter to the Information Commissioner’s Office.

The Information Commissioner can be contacted at: Information Commissioner’s Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF or at [email address].

Regards

James Derby
Corporate Solicitor

show quoted sections

Stephen Whiteside

Dear Mr Derby

Your Ref: F/CRT/10009165 ICO Ref: FER0754718

I refer to your email of today’s date (5 July 2018)..

You say “I write further to your email below requesting internal review of your request for information. ...”, BUT there is NO email below.

You say that you have examined my request for information contained in my email of 26 February and refer to the Council’s VERY LATE response of 20/21 June, BUT you have made no mention of my request for internal review OF that response, which was made on 29 June 2018.

That SECOND request for internal review can be found at the following address:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/3...

As required by the Regulations and in accordance with the Information Commissioner’s guidance, I expect the Authority’s decision on THAT internal review as soon as possible and certainly no later than 40 working days after receipt.

Yours sincerely,

Stephen Whiteside

Derby, James, Croydon Borough Council

Dear Mr Whiteside

Thank you for your email below. My internal review of yesterday was in response to your email of 13 June 2018 which was below my response. Maybe you did not see your email in view of the formatting structure of the "whatdotheyknow" emails.

I am not aware of your request for internal review made on 29 June 2018, maybe this was assigned to another colleague. I will ask relevant officers about this new internal review and someone will be in touch with you.

Regards

James Derby
Corporate Solicitor

Legal & Democratic Services
Legal Division
Resources Department
Floor 7, Zone C
Bernard Weatherill House
8 Mint Walk
Croydon, CR0 1EA
Tel: 020 8686 4433 Ext: 61359

show quoted sections

Stephen Whiteside

Dear Mr Derby,

Your Ref: F/CRT/10009165 ICO Ref: FER0754718

You told me on 5 July that you were not aware of my request for internal review made on 29 June 2018 and that you would "... ask relevant officers about this new internal review …" and that "... someone will be in touch with you".

I have heard nothing since on this matter and we are now beyond the legal time limits for the Council to provide its decision on that (second) internal review.

If I do not receive the Council's decision by 31 August, I will (again) contact the Information Commissioner.

Yours sincerely,

Stephen Whiteside

Derby, James, Croydon Borough Council

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Whiteside

 

The ICO has brought to the Council's attention that your request for
internal review of your EIR request Ref F/CRT/10009165 remains unanswered.
The ICO reference for this complaint is FER0754718.

 

I have made some enquires regarding this complaint and can confirm a
response has not been issued to you. The Information team were under the
impression your request had been passed to the team that conducts internal
reviews but unfortunately this was not the case. I sincerely apologise for
the delay in conducting this internal review.

 

I understand that following your request for information regarding
disclosure of information contained in planning file 18/00749FUL you were
provided with a response dated 24 April 2018 pursuant to the provisions of
the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR).

 

I note that from the content of your email below, you were dissatisfied
with the EIR response the Council issued and you have therefore requested
for this internal review. In the course of conducting this internal
review, I have considered your request for information, the Council's
response and your complaint as contained in the email below. I have
considered the Council's obligations under the EIR and considered various
ICO decision notices, guidance notes and Information Tribunal decisions.

 

The EIR provides a general right of access to "environmental information"
held by a public authority subject to any exception available under the
EIR. Under the EIR, there is a presumption of disclosure save to the
extent that an exception is engaged and where applicable the public
interest test has been considered.

 

Following the combined cases of the Home Office v Information Commissioner
(GIA/2098/2010) and DEFRA v Information Commissioner (GIA/1694/2010) in
the Upper Tribunal, a public authority is able to claim a new exemption or
exception either at internal review, before the ICO or the First-tier
Tribunal and both the ICO and Tribunal must consider any such new claims.
In this regard, it is the Council's submission that even though this
internal review is being conducted outside the statutory timescale of 20
workings days, the Council is at liberty to apply any of the EIR
exceptions when conducting this internal review.

 

I have considered your request for internal review in this matter and I am
of the view that your request falls under the exception provided in
Regulation 12 (4) (b) of the EIR as "the request for information is
manifestly unreasonable".

 

Regulation 12(4)(b) states:

 

12(4) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(a), a public authority may refuse
to disclose information to the extent that –

 

(b) the request for information is manifestly unreasonable".

 

According to the ICO guidance titled "Manifestly unreasonable requests
-regulation 12(4)(b)”, “this exception can be used when the request is
vexatious; or when the cost of compliance with the request would be too
great”. According to the ICO in the above mentioned guidance “in practice
there is no material difference between a request that is vexatious under
section 14(1) of FOIA and a request that is manifestly unreasonable on
vexatious grounds under the EIR”.

 

The ICO further states that “the purpose of the exception is to protect
public authorities from exposure to a disproportionate burden or an
unjustified level of distress, disruption or irritation, in handling
information requests”.

 

I have considered and applied this exception as I am concerned with the
nature of the request and the impact of dealing with it and not any
adverse effect that might arise from disclosure of the content of the
information requested.

 

I note that between October 2017 and 20 August 2018 you have made a total
of 19 EIR requests to the Council relating to pre planning and planning
applications. In particular, most of the requests relate to pre planning
and planning applications submitted by a developer known as Aventier. The
attached table shows a record of all the EIR requests you have issued to
the Council relating to pre planning and planning applications within the
said period. Further, I note that you have requested over 12 internal
reviews within the last 10 months on these pre planning and planning
applications and the Council has exchanged a very high number of
correspondence with the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) regarding
some of these EIR pre planning and planning application requests.

 

In applying this exception I have considered the ICO guidance note on
manifestly unreasonable requests and observes that “in practice there is
no material difference between a request that is vexatious under Section
14(1) of FOIA and a request that is manifestly unreasonable on vexatious
grounds under the EIR.”

 

The ICO guidance titled “dealing with vexatious requests (section 14)”
provides detailed guidance for refusing a request on grounds of being
vexatious or manifestly unreasonable. According to the guidance “the key
question to ask is whether the request is likely to cause a
disproportionate or unjustified level of disruption, irritation or
distress. This will usually be a matter of objectively judging the
evidence of the impact on the authority and weighing this against any
evidence about the purpose and value of the request. The public authority
may also take into account the context and history of the request, where
this is relevant”.

 

According to the Section 14 guidance “the Information Commissioner
recognises that dealing with unreasonable requests can place a strain on
resources and get in the way of delivering mainstream services or
answering legitimate requests. Furthermore, these requests can also damage
the reputation of the legislation itself”. The emphasis on protecting
public authorities’ resources from unreasonable requests was acknowledged
by the Upper Tribunal in the case of Information Commissioner vs Devon
County Council & Dransfield [2012] UKUT 440 (AAC), (28 January 2013).

 

According to the Upper Tribunal “the question of whether a request is
vexatious ultimately depends upon the circumstances surrounding that
request. In further exploring the role played by circumstances, the
Tribunal placed particular emphasis on the issue of whether the request
has adequate or proper justification”. After taking these factors into
account, the Tribunal concluded that ‘vexatious’ could be defined as the
“…manifestly unjustified, inappropriate or improper use of a formal
procedure”.

 

At the subsequent Court of Appeal Case (Dransfield v Information
Commissioner and Devon County Council [2015] EWCA Civ 454 (14 May 2015)),
Lady Judge Arden observed that; “…the emphasis should be on an objective
standard and that the starting point is that vexatiousness primarily
involves making a request which has no reasonable foundation, that is, no
reasonable foundation for thinking that the information sought would be of
value to the requester or to the public or any section of the public.”

 

The ICO in its guidance on vexatious requests listed some indicators for
vexatious requests; these include: “burden on the authority, unreasonable
persistence, unfounded accusations, frequent or overlapping requests,
scattergun approach, disproportionate effort, futile requests and
frivolous requests.

 

I consider the following indicators, as outlined in the guidance, are met
in respect of this request:

•           Burden on the Authority

•           Unfounded accusations

•           Frequent or overlapping requests.

•           Unreasonable persistence

•           Disproportionate effort

•           Futile requests and frivolous requests

 

I have considered all the circumstances of this EIR and related EIR
requests you have made pertaining to pre planning and planning
applications since October 2017; I consider that these requests have
caused and continues to cause a disproportionate or unjustified level of
disruption, irritation and distress to the Council.

 

I consider that these 19 requests are disproportionate and there is no
serous purpose or value attached to these requests. Whilst the Council is
not expressly aware of any value these requests provides to you, the
Council believes the requests are of no value to the public. For example,
these EIR requests and your requests for internal reviews raises repeat
issues which have already been fully considered by the Council’s planning
authority either through Council officers or Members at Planning
Committees.

 

Further in these EIR requests and internal reviews, you continue to
challenge the Council for alleged wrongdoing without any cogent basis for
doing so and you continue to pursue a relatively trivial or highly
personalised matter of little if any benefit to the wider public.

 

According to the ICO “the requester’s past pattern of behaviour may also
be a relevant consideration. For instance, if the authority’s experience
of dealing with his previous requests suggests that he won’t be satisfied
with any response and will submit numerous follow up enquiries no matter
what information is supplied, then this evidence could strengthen any
argument that responding to the current request will impose a
disproportionate burden on the authority”. The Council notes you have a
pattern of submitting numerous follow up enquiries no matter what
information is supplied to you and further notes you have a pattern of
mixing up requests and references thereby putting disproportionate
pressures on the Council.

 

It is my view that the EIR requests you have submitted on pre planning and
planning applications have imposed a grossly oppressive burden on the
Council’s FOI/EIR team as they have been lumbered and inundated with the
burden of reviewing and preparing the information for disclosure. Each EIR
request on pre planning and planning applications takes an officer in the
FOI/EIR team at least six (6) hours to complete the processing of a
request. The Council further notes that you constantly make allegations of
impropriety against the Council’s planning team in your EIR requests on
pre planning and planning applications even though these application have
been subject to scrutiny through Council’s laid down processes including
planning committee.

 

In applying this exception the Council is expected to consider the public
interest test. The public interest in maintaining this exception lies in
protecting public authorities from exposure to disproportionate burden or
to an unjustified level of distress, disruption or irritation in handling
information requests. Dealing with manifestly unreasonable requests can
and does place a strain on resources and get in the way of public
authorities delivering mainstream services or answering other requests.

 

The Council acknowledges that there is a public interest in disclosure to
promote transparency and accountability and a more effective public
participation in environmental decision making all of which ultimately
contribute to a better environment; however, the Council notes that there
is already in operation a process where members of the public can
participate in the decision making of planning applications through
consultations and attending planning committee meetings which are open to
all members of the public. It is therefore the Council’s view that the
public interest in maintaining the exception outweighs the public interest
in disclosure.

 

I consider that there is no response the Council can reasonably give in
respect of any of the matters you raise (in respect of pre planning and
planning applications) that will be the end of the matter and that your
actions have caused an unreasonable amount of time to be spent on your
case.

 

In conclusion, I am of the view the exception provided in Regulation 12
(4) (b) EIR is engaged therefore the Council not consider any issues
raised in your email below.

 

If you are not content with this decision, you have the right to apply
directly to the Information Commissioner for a decision. The Information
Commissioner can be contacted at:

 

Information Commissioner’s Office

Wycliffe House

Water Lane

Wilmslow

Cheshire, SK9 5AF

 

 

James Derby

Corporate Solicitor

Legal & Democratic Services

Legal Division

Resources Department

Floor 7, Zone C

Bernard Weatherill House

8 Mint Walk

Croydon, CR0 1EA

Tel: 020 8686 4433 Ext: 61359

 

 

show quoted sections