Dear Salhouse Parish Council,

1. In 2016 Salhouse Parish Council enquired with Broadland District Council whether the Asset of Community Value status of 82 & 82b Lower Street was sill in place. Salhouse Parish Council were informed, by email, that the ACV's on both 82 & 82b Lower Street were still in place and valid until March 2018.
This is an information request to provide a copy of the 2016 correspondence.

2. Between 11.1.17 and 22.3.17, Broadland District Council once again corresponded with the parish council regarding ACV's on 82 &82b Lower Street. Whilst the district council in 2016 had previously confirmed ACV's were in place and valid until March 2018, the district council advised the parish council that the ACV's had been subsequently removed from the register.
This is an information request to provide a copy of the 2017 correspondence.

3. Please could Salhouse Parish Council provide a copy of any other correspondence between Salhouse Parish Council and Broadland District Council in respect to any Assets of Community Value between 1.1.17 and 30.6.17.

Yours faithfully,
Lucy Bailey

Dear Salhouse Parish Council,

I have not received an acknowledgment from the parish council to the FOI Request of 18.11.20.

Please can you confirm that you have received this request and that the council will be in a position to respond on or before 17.12.20.

Yours faithfully,
Lucy Bailey

Dear Salhouse Parish Council,

On the 18th November 2020, I sent a Freedom of Information request to the parish council. It is now twenty working days since that request. Please provide the information requested or provide an explanation as to the council is with holding the information and not fulfilling its legal obligations.

Thank you.

Yours faithfully,
Lucy Bailey
Post Script - Below is a copy of the original request.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Dear Salhouse Parish Council,

1. In 2016 Salhouse Parish Council enquired with Broadland District Council whether the Asset of Community Value status of 82 & 82b Lower Street was sill in place. Salhouse Parish Council were informed, by email, that the ACV's on both 82 & 82b Lower Street were still in place and valid until March 2018.
This is an information request to provide a copy of the 2016 correspondence.

2. Between 11.1.17 and 22.3.17, Broadland District Council once again corresponded with the parish council regarding ACV's on 82 &82b Lower Street. Whilst the district council in 2016 had previously confirmed ACV's were in place and valid until March 2018, the district council advised the parish council that the ACV's had been subsequently removed from the register.
This is an information request to provide a copy of the 2017 correspondence.

3. Please could Salhouse Parish Council provide a copy of any other correspondence between Salhouse Parish Council and Broadland District Council in respect to any Assets of Community Value between 1.1.17 and 30.6.17.

Yours faithfully,
Lucy Bailey

Dear Ms Martin

Thank you for your FOI response.

FOI Request Response 1.
From SPC's FOI response of 17.12.20, SPC have confirmed that it does not hold the information on the inquiries the parish council is alleged to have made in 2016 regarding the status of ACV’s for 82 & 82b Lower Street.

Unfortunately, this does not accord with the evidence given by SPC in the ACV appeal meeting with Broadland District Council's Deputy Chief Executive on 26th May 2017 at 2pm. The minutes of the 26.5.17 with Matthew Cross DCEO and SPC reflect a timeline of evidence presented by Cllr McCormick to the meeting which clearly state as follows:

“In 2016 the PC enquired with BDC whether the ACV status was still in place, and where informed, by email, that the ACV’s on both properties were valid until March 2018.’

*Therefore, please could SPC please undertake a review with its councillors and/or BDC to provide the emails quoted in Cllr McCormick's timeline that was submitted as evidence for the appeal. *

Request Response 2.
From SPC's FOI response of 17.12.20, SPC have confirmed that it does not hold the information on the inquiries it made in respect to the ACV’s being removed from the register.

Unfortunately, this does not accord with the evidence given by SPC in the appeal meeting with Broadland District Council Deputy Chief Executive on 26th May 2017 at 2pm.

The minutes of the 26.5.17 with Matthew Cross DCEO and SPC reflect a timeline of evidence presented by Cllr McCormick to the meeting which clearly state as follows:

‘At the February 2017 PC meeting a parishioner reported that Radley’s was likely to close and the Post Office was at risk and requested that the PC took some action to save it. This was minuted. The PC advised BDC that they might wish to invoke the ACV on no.82b but was informed by BDC that the ACV’s on both properties had been removed. No explanation was available.’

It should be noted that Cllr. McCormick’ s timeline states that at the February 2017 meeting a parishioner requested that the PC took action to save the post office. This is false. The minutes of the Feb 2017 parish meeting are silent on the ACV.

It should also be noted neither SPC or BDC can provide supporting evidence that the alleged 2016 and 2017 email correspondence on ACV status took place between the two councils. Consequently, there is no basis in fact to support the evidence given by SPC to the appeals examiner.

However, as the ACV process is a legal one and the ACV’s on 82b & 82 Lower Street remain active until 2022 and 2024 respectively, I am sure such important evidential emails will have been retained but have simply been overlooked and will be found upon review to prove otherwise.

*Please could SPC please undertake a review with its councillors and/or BDC to provide the emails where the parish council advised BDC that the parish council might wish to invoke the ACV but was informed that the ACV's had been removed by BDC *

Request Response 3
Thank you for the copies of the emails of correspondence between SPC and BDC between 1.1.17 and 30.6.17. There appears to be a substantial amount of correspondence missing which I will return to. However, the information you have sent requires some clarity.

The FOI response has provided 8 emails (in date order not in the order provided under FOI request)

1. 3.3.17 email from James Overy to SPC cc’d to Martin Thrower, Vincent Tapp, Fran Whymark [the Bell]
2. 6.3.17 email from James Overy to SPC cc’d to Martin Thrower, Vincent Tapp, Fran Whymark
3. 24.3.17 email from SPC to James Overy & Martin Thrower cc’d to Vincent Tapp – Submission of ACV nomination
4. 29.3.17 email from James Overy to SPC cc’d Fran Whymark, Vincent Tapp and Martin Thrower.
5. 19.5.17 email from James Overy to SPC
6. 15.6.17 email from James Overy – addresses unknown – Letter Attached
7. 20.6.17 email from SPC to James Overy
8. 28.6.17 email from James Overy to SPC – Letter Attached

*The attachments for email number 3 [24.3.17] SPC’s nomination of 82b Lower Street is missing.
Please provide a copy of the attachments. *

*The attachments for email 6 [15.6.17] are missing.
Please provide a copy of attachments*.

*The attachments for email 7[20.6.17] are missing.
Please provide a copy of attachments*.

*The attachments for email 8 [28.6.17] are missing.
Please provide a copy of attachments*.

*The attachments for email number 5 [19.5.17] does not have the corresponding acceptance email. It is clear that SPC met with BDC on 26.5.17, therefore, please provide all other emails relating to this meeting*

Returning to what is missing from this FOI. It is clear that there are a number of other emails missing.

In respect to the Bell and the moratorium discussed in the emails with James Overy dated 3 & 6th March 2017. At the 3.4.17 SPC meeting the parish council resolved as follows: -

“Colin McCormick reviewed the PC's position regarding the ACV on the Bell PH, and although it had been considered to submit an interest under the ACV, now that an independent buyer has come forward to purchase the freehold and run the pub (see public participation), it was recommended for the PC to decline the option under the ACV to support a community bid and let the purchase go through. This was proposed by Colin McCormick; seconded by Reg Reeve, all agreed. It was agreed to keep in touch with the Plunkett Foundation for future advice. Clerk to submit decision to BDC.”

*Please provide the missing letter from SPC clerk to BDC that implements this resolution*

The ACV nomination dated 22.3.17, signed by Sarah Martin, includes 2014 Cabinet minutes that were provided to SPC by BDC for submission as supporting evidence for its 2017 nomination/application.

*Please provide the missing correspondence between SPC and BDC where BDC has provided SPC with the 2014 evidence that the parish council subsequently submitted with its 2017 nomination.

I look forward to the review outcome, missing data and clarification of the information provided at your earliest convenience.

Yours faithfully,
Lucy Bailey.
Post Script: Whilst this is linked to the information arising from SPC's FOI responses of 17.12.10, I will be seeking further clarification in respect to SPC’s nomination of 82 & 82b Lower Street. To prevent confusing the review process, this would be better served by submitting a separate FOI.

Dear Ms Martin

On the 17th December 2020, I submitted a request for a review of my FOI and clarification of the information provided in the first release of documents.

It is now over 20 working days, please could you provide a timescale of when the review will be completed?

Many Thanks

Yours faithfully,
Lucy Bailey

Dear Salhouse Parish Council Clerk

I have not had a response to my FOI Review [17.12.20] or my follow up email after the 20 working days had been reached.

I hope all is well with you and your lack of a Review response is merely an oversight?

If so, I would be grateful if you could provide me with the Review findings or advise me of the date when the council expects the Review of my FOI to be completed?

Yours faithfully,
Lucy Bailey

Dear Salhouse Parish Council,

I have received a response from Salhouse Parish Council and been advised that the council will not provide an answer before 28.2.21 at the earliest?

Please note that I submitted my original FOI on 18.11.20 - to wait for clarification of matters relating to this FOI will mean that I have waited 69 days for a response!

Please also note that I have asked for a Review of the FOI and this will make that review processes 49 days long at the very earliest. I think this is also inappropriate and - but also illegal? Please confirm.

Also please could the clerk provide me with a reason of why the FOI is taking so long to be processed satisfactorily and an exact date rather one sometime in the future yet unspecified?

Yours faithfully,
Lucy Bailey

Dear Salhouse Parish Council,

I am not sure what you are saying is right.

I will be calling the information commissions office in the morning and taking their advice on how to respond to you.

Thank you
Yours faithfully,

Lucy Bailey

Dear Salhouse Parish Council,

I have spoken to the ICO and before I can submit a complaint about your treatment of my FOI, I must ask your organisation to undertake a review of the decision.

Please accept this note as a request for an internal review.

Yours faithfully,

Lucy Bailey