Croydon BLANKET20MPH PLANS - processing of OBJECTIONS - AREAS 3+4+5, Spring 2017

The request was refused by Croydon Borough Council.

Dear Croydon Borough Council,

Any objector ha a right to verify that their Objections have been properly handled by the council.

Referring to the 9 MAY 2017 Report to TMAC and accompanying spreadsheet, kindly provide answers to the following questions

1 - What system was used to identify and link each row in the spreadsheet with each individual objector and objection submitted?

2 - How many objectors were there for each of Areas 3, 4 and 5 - ie how many separate individuals submitted objections to each area?

3 - Please supply a list showing the objector number for each row of the spreadsheet - so that anyone can see which objector submitted which objections and how many made multiple objections.

It is normal and routine in council planning and traffic reports to list objectors from ward councillors and from organisations.
4 - Why, unusually, was that not done for the 20mph Report?

5 - How many ward cllrs and from which wads submitted objections, and what was the text of their objections?

6 - How many organisations submitted objections, and what was the text of their objections?

7 - Where are the numbers of objectors to each road put forward to stay at 30?
Where are the reasons given for each above road?
Where is the council's response to those reasons?

8 - Is there a 1-1 match between objections received and rows in the spreadsheet?

9 - Is there a 1-1 match between objections received into the Objections Inbox and rows in the spreadsheet?
Is it correct that all email objections went straight there, or were forwarded there by the council. Paper objections were scanned and emailed there by council staff?

10 - Where in the TMAC Report and the spreadsheet are the objections calling for a Public Inquiry under the RTRA?
For example, "There should be a PUBLIC INQUIRY on this highly contentious issue - as the law permits"

11 - Where in the TMAC Report and the spreadsheet are the objections saying the council had failed to follow government guidelines?
For example: "The council should have followed DfT rules, assessing road speeds before changing limits."

12 - Where in the TMAC Report and the spreadsheet are the objections calling for variable speed limits, and where is the list of roads suggested for this?
For example: "Variable 30/20mph speed limits should apply on some roads, eg near schools and colleges."

13 - Where in the TMAC Report and the spreadsheet are the objections listing roads with no street notice - for which roads was this reported?

14 - Please supply the time of receipt by the council in the Inbox for each entry in the spreadsheet.

15 - 3 The TMAC report states:
§4.3.1 If a respondent has objected on more than one of the above categories then each category has been counted as an individual objection.
A number of respondents have objected via email on a single category, once per each area, on up to as many as all 9 categories, which gives rise to up to 27 responses per individual. Each of these has been counted as a single objection i.e. 27 objections were counted.

§5.1.1 The Areas in the north of the borough were allowed to have their say via an opinion survey as to whether they support a 20mph limit or not. Areas 3, 4 & 5 have not been allowed to take part in an opinion survey and this is unfair.

15A - What happened in the event that an Objector sent in one objection, for example objecting to no YES / NO vote on the basis that it was unfair and discriminatory, and then later sent in a further objection objecting to no YES / NO vote on the basis that it went against normal council practice and good practice?
Maybe a week later a third objection saying it was wrong to have a legal minimum statutory only process, given the scale and complexity of the proposal?

15B - How would this differ from another person who sent one email making all 3 of the above objections?

15C - How about 3 different people who sent in one each of the above?

15D - If an email was sent in from Mr and Mrs Smith, for example, did that count as one objection or two?

15E - Suppose they sent identical emails from the same email address, but signed by one and then the other?

Yours faithfully,

Peter Morgan

Freedom of Information, Croydon Borough Council

 

Dear Mr Morgan

 

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/

Freedom Of Information, Croydon Borough Council

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Morgan

Please see attached the Councils response to your Freedom of Information
request.

Kind regards.

Ash Riaz

Information Coordinator

 

 

show quoted sections

Dear Croydon Borough Council,

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 'Croydon BLANKET20MPH PLANS - processing of OBJECTIONS - AREAS 3+4+5, Spring 2017'.

The council has been wilfully obstructing my attempts to expose the wrongful way the council processed objections to its 20mph limit scheme.

The last response from the council to myself under FOI / EIR was on 13 Jun 2017, when the council refused to supply the text of the representations, citing dubious / bogus confidentiality grounds, and ignored the request for the time of each response - not burdensome.
The cost to the council of providing that REFUSAL would be very small.
The council took 4 weeks to give that Refusal - clearly yet another abuse of the rules regarding prompt response.

The council has not responded to any previous FOI / EIR Requests of mine since 10 Feb 2017.

The council claims to have "received" a number of emails from myself, but not FOI / EIR Requests.
Emails handled under Normal Business terms do not affect Requests for Information under FOI / EIR.

In terms of the alleged "200 separate objection emails to the 20mph speed limit scheme", it should be noted that the council wilfully generated extra emails by losing some objections, and then grossly mishandling resolving that council error.
.
1 - Objections to a council proposed Traffic Order are not Requests for Information.
Thus they are wholly irrelevant to this FOI / EIR Request.

2 - The council has made no response to ANY of my objections to its 20mph scheme, other than to belatedly and grudgingly acknowledge receipt.
The only response the council has made is a generic one made to all objectors.
Thus any time spent on my objections would be very small.
All my objections to its 20mph scheme were sent on or before 15 Feb 2017, and that is too long ago for any possible linking.

3 - The council was under an obligation to respond to my objections.
It is a demonstrable fact that most of my objections are not in either the TMAC Report or the council spreadsheet.
I allege serious wrongdoing by the council.

4 - It is precisely to prevent a council hiding its wrongdoing that FOI / EIR rules were brought in.
There is a very strong public interest in examining how the council did in fact handle objections.
The council should be keen to demonstrate utmost good faith.
Instead the council has wilfully obstructed every attempt to find out and expose what it did in fact do - clearly having something to hide.

5 - The council has no case that answering my own FOI / EIR Requests has been an excessive burden over the past 5 months.
However that is not the issue.

The Public Interest test only arises if the cost of compliance would be manifestly excessive.
That does not arise here.

6 - The council has wrongly advised itself over the Public Interest test.
"the public interest favours non-disclosure due to the disproportionate burden your correspondence has placed on council resources".
The council is under a duty to consider whether the Public Interest warrants providing the information sought REGARDLESS of who asks.

7 - In this case, a proper consideration of the Public Interest would clearly favour disclosure.

If the council did in fact handle objections properly, then it would be simple and quick to provide the information asked for.

It is only if the council did in fact mishandle objections from myself and others that it might be somewhat burdensome to respond as asked.
Even then, it is not the time taken to answer that worries the council, but the fact that to do so honestly would expose the council to serious criticism for the wrongful way it mishandled the objection process.

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

Yours faithfully,

Peter Morgan

HERE IS WHAT THE COUNCIL WROTE:

The Council takes the view that the information is exempt from disclosure under Regulation 12(4) (b) of the Environmental Information Regulations. This exception allows us to take into consideration the context and volume of correspondence that the Council has received from you on this matter.
I have spoken with the departments about your request and have been told that they have received over 60 emails so far this year on traffic and highway issues. This is in addition to over 200 separate objection emails to the 20mph speed limit scheme. In dealing with this correspondence, the Council has feels it has you with appropriate advice and assistance.

In deciding whether to apply this exception the Council is expected to balance the public interest test in withholding the information against the public interest in disclosing the information. Although the Council accepts that there is a strong emphasis on the disclosure of environmental information, it is felt that the public interest favours non-disclosure due to the disproportionate burden your correspondence has placed on council resources.

For further information in this, please see Information Commissioner's Office guidance on the application this exception;
https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisatio...

If you are dissatisfied with the way the Council has handled your request under the Freedom of Information Act you may ask for an internal review. This should be submitted to us within 40 working days of this response. You can do this by outlining the details of your complaint by:

Email: [email address]

Writing: Information Team
London Borough of Croydon
Bernard Weatherill House
Floor 7 - Zone B
8 Mint Walk
Croydon, CR0 1EA

Any requests received after the 40 working day time limit will be considered only at the discretion of the council.

If you are not content with the outcome of the internal review, 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

--

Dear Freedom Of Information,

I submitted an Internal Review Request 8 days ago, but you have yet to reply.
Please confirm my request is in hand by return email.

Yours sincerely,

Peter Morgan

Information, Croydon Borough Council

Dear Mr Morgan

Thank you for your email.

I can confirm that your review is in progress and currently with our legal team.

They will get back to you shortly.

Kind regards.

Jo
Information Team

Dear Information,

3 weeks have passed, so please update on where we are with this FOI Request.

Yours sincerely,

Peter Morgan

Information, Croydon Borough Council

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Morgan

 

We apologise for the time this is taking to process.

 

Your request is still receiving attention from our legal team and we hope
to be in a position to update you soon.

 

Once we have the required information we will be in contact with you.

 

Apologies for any inconvenience.

 

Kind regards.

 

Jo

 

Jo Welch-Hall

Information Support Officer

 

[1]cid:image001.jpg@01D30A17.44961B50

 

Resources Department

Customer Transformation and Communications Services

Information and Systems Manager

7^th Floor, Zone B

Bernard Weatherill House

8 Mint Walk

Croydon CR0 1EA

 

 

Sebastian Brun, Croydon Borough Council

1 Attachment

BY EMAIL ONLY

 

Dear Mr Morgan,

 

Please see the attached correspondence.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Sebastian Brun

 

Sebastian Brun          

Trainee Solicitor

 

Resources Department

Democratic and Legal Services 

7th Floor, Zone C

Bernard Weatherill House

Croydon, CR0 1EA

Tel: 020 8686 4433 (ext 64390)

Fax: 020 8407 1322 

Email: [1][email address]

 

PLEASE NOTE WE DO NOT ACCEPT SERVICE OF LEGAL DOCUMENTS BY EMAIL.

 

Dear Information,

Thank you for your reply.
It does raise further questions.

For ease of understanding, I have quoted the original question - Q1, Q2 etc, then the council answer -A1, A2 etc, and then the new further question, F1, F2 etc.

Q1 What system was used to identify and link each row in the spreadsheet with each individual objector and objection submitted?

A1 The time and date that the email responses were received by the 'objections' inbox was used to cross reference the individual receipts into a spreadsheet. This enabled an email with or without attachment to be linked to a row in the spreadsheet.

F1 So why does the council claim it is not possible to identify the rows in the spreadsheet which correspond to my objections?
The concern is that many have said their objections are not in the report, and they can't identify them in the spreadsheet, even knowing the date of submission.
All the council needs to do is search the Inbox for emails from myself, and then provide the relevant row numbers.
Likewise for other people who have provided me with their objection emails, but we cannot see them in the spreadsheet.

Q2 How many objectors were there for each of Areas 3, 4 and 5 - ie how many separate individuals submitted objections to each area?

A2. The number of responses was not broken down into the three areas, as some responses indicated that they were objecting to a single area, whilst other appeared to be objecting to 20mph in general and could therefore have been objecting to all three. As for the number of separate individuals who submitted a response, this not known as many individuals made numerous responses, sometimes through both electronic and paper submissions.

The aim was to highlight the individual objections each response contained, and ensure these were all captured and responded to within the report submitted to the Council's Traffic Management Advisory Committee (TMAC). The number of individual responses was not therefore considered to be the primary focus of the consultation.

F2 Each area had to be considered separately.
The number of objectors to each area is a relevant factor to consider when making a decision.
Why is there not a reference number for each objector, so one can see which rows correspond to the same individual?

Q3 Please supply a list showing the objector number for each row of the spreadsheet - so that anyone can see which objector submitted which objections and how many made multiple objections.

A3. It would be very difficult to determine with any accuracy the number of actual objectors. For this reason, the ownership of each objection, how many separate objections came from the same objector, or how many separate individuals submitted objections, has not been recorded. To go through the list and try to determine which responses are from the same objector would be particularly time-consuming and fraught with inaccuracy.
The Council is therefore unable to disclose this information.

F3 An obvious method would be to count how many distinct email addresses submitted objections.
This is simple in a spreadsheet.
Please provide this information.

How did the council validate its data entry process into the spreadsheet?
What if someone submitted two identical objections, say 10 days apart?

It is normal and routine in council planning and traffic reports to list objectors from ward councillors and from organisations.
Q4 Why, unusually, was that not done for the 20mph Report?

A4. This has been answered previously.

F4 This FOI Request is being published on a public website.
I have not been given this information under FOI, and I do not recall an answer.
It cannot be hard to provide the answer here - Please do so.

Q5 How many ward cllrs and from which wards submitted objections, and what was the text of their objections?

A5. It is not appropriate to provide any information that could identify an individual, which would be disclosing personal data to you.

F5 If a ward councillor submitted a personal objection as an individual, that might be correct - but see later on that.

It is a nonsense to suggest that revealing the total NUMBER of objections from councillors could be any breach of "personal data" - so kindly provide that number.

Furthermore, as there are only 70 councillors, it would be simple for the council to send an email to each and ask if they have any objection to the fact of their objection and its text being released. That is something the council is required to do under FOI / EIR.
In addition, if a ward councillor submitted an objection in that capacity, for example signed as Councillor for Purley Ward, then that is disclosable under FOI - so please provide that information.

How does the council distinguish this 20mph case from a Reigate Public Notice: “You should be aware that the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 allows anyone the right to examine and receive copies of your representations. Your letter or e-mail will therefore be open to public viewing, including via the internet”.
Why does the council say the 1985 Act does not apply to objections to the 20mph scheme?

Q6 How many organisations submitted objections, and what was the text of their objections?

A6. Where responses were received from residents' associations or action groups, these were taken as being the views of the individual writer, and are therefore also subject to data protection considerations.

F6 Why did the council make the highly unusual, fanciful and insulting suggestion that that responses from "residents' associations or action groups ...were taken as being the views of the individual writer"?
What was the basis for this decision?

How then does the council explain TMAC 11 Oct 2017, page 65, where there is a summary of the views of 4 RA’s, and the actual text is quoted in full, for example on pages 91-93. The same may be seen in other TMAC agendas.
Why did the council adopt a different approach for its 20mph scheme - unless to conceal the true level of objection?
The council is inventing difficulties to avoid disclosing the facts for the 20mph scheme, and gong against normal practice for traffic objections.
Once again, it is clear that the council has been actively obstructing the relapse of relevant information – and one has to ask why, if they have nothing to hide?
TMAC agenda document here - http://bit.ly/2yTUQj2.

So where groups sat down and discussed and agreed a response they were simply wasting their time?

It is a nonsense to suggest that revealing the total NUMBER of objections from residents' associations or action groups could be any breach of "personal data" - so kindly provide that number.

Again, the number of organisations that submitted objections is likely to be small, so again the council can reasonably be expected to send an email to each and ask if they have any objection to the fact of their objection and its text being released. That is something the council is required to do under FOI / EIR.
Then, it is surely obvious that it is very likely that an organisation that submits an objection would be happy for the fact of it and its contents to be made public?

Kindly reconsider this matter and now provide the requested information.

Q7 Where are the numbers of objectors to each road put forward to stay at 30?
Where are the reasons given for each above road?
Where is the council's response to those reasons?

A7. Where a response was received that included a comment on a particular road remaining at 30mph (or to be made 20 but to be retained at 30), this was simply noted in a list of roads and was considered at the TMAC meeting of 9 May 2017.

F7 So the council decided the Committee could make a decision on each road without any idea of how many said it should stay at 30, or the reasons why?
How does this meet the duty to consider ALL relevant information before making a decision?
How does it meet the duty to act fairly and reasonably?

Q8 Is there a 1-1 match between objections received and rows in the spreadsheet?

A8. Yes.

Q9 Is there a 1-1 match between objections received into the Objections Inbox and rows in the spreadsheet?
Is it correct that all email objections went straight there, or were forwarded there by the council. Paper objections were scanned and emailed there by council staff?

A9. Yes.

F9 So how can it be hard to link rows in the spreadsheet to objectors?
The council has the Inbox with objector email addresses.
Kindly identify the rows that correspond to any of my objections - I am happy for this information to be made public.

Q10 Where in the TMAC Report and the spreadsheet are the objections calling for a Public Inquiry under the RTRA?
For example, "There should be a PUBLIC INQUIRY on this highly contentious issue - as the law permits"

A10. The Council is not obliged to hold a public inquiry as there has been adequate opportunity for stakeholders to express their views on the proposals through the public notice consultation process. Requesting a public inquiry does not constitute an objection and was therefore not reported.

F10 So why did the council state that "all objections" are in the report, and that "no objections were rejected as invalid or irrelevant"?

I saw an objection that stated "the council should hold a Public Inquiry as provided for in the 1984 RTRA before going ahead".
Whether or not the council is "obliged to hold a public inquiry", and whatever reasons the council may now state "as there has been adequate opportunity ...", the council should report and answer the point.- and record how often this or a similar point was made
On what basis does the council say this "does not constitute an objection"?
How many objections did call for a Public Inquiry before the scheme was approved?

Q11 Where in the TMAC Report and the spreadsheet are the objections saying the council had failed to follow government guidelines?
For example: "The council should have followed DfT rules, assessing road speeds before changing limits."

A11. The Council has followed the guidance provided by the Department for Transport (DfT) as it applies to 20mph areas. The DfT do not produce rules for implementing 20mph limits, just guidance.

F11 The council has now provided an answer to the objection, but has not answered the first question, nor addressed the second at all.
I have seen objections that quoted sections of this guidance that the council has demonstrably failed to follow.
Why are these objections not reported and answered?
How many such objections were received?
What in fact is the answer here?

Why does the 9-5-17 Report to TMAC state §2.3: "All objections received in response to the Public Notice for the Croydon Areas 3, 4 & 5 20mph limits scheme together with an officer response to each objection is in Section 5 of this report.", when this is now shows to be untrue?

Where is this objection in the TMAC Report: "There is no evidence of community support for these new 20mph limits - a requirement of government guidance"?

Q12 Where in the TMAC Report and the spreadsheet are the objections calling for variable speed limits, and where is the list of roads suggested for this?
For example: "Variable 30/20mph speed limits should apply on some roads, eg near schools and colleges."

A12. In respect of variable 20mph/30mph limits, we refer you, for example, to section 5.9, subsections 5.9.1, 5.9.2 and 5.9.3 of the TMAC report.

F12 Why does the council state as below, given that the council has introduced a part-time 20mph speed limit on Pampisford Road, which is clearly a "residential road"?
5.9.3 Objection:
Council should consider a part time 20mph speed limit only
Response:
Part time speed limits would not be practical to implement on residential roads.

Q13 Where in the TMAC Report and the spreadsheet are the objections listing roads with no street notice - for which roads was this reported?

A13. In respect of roads with no street notice, by which we assume you mean roads to remain at 30mph, comments were received regarding these rather than objections. As they did not form part of a proposal, there was no invitation for anyone to object to a speed limit change. The list of roads suggested is in annex 3 of the report.

F13 NO. The question related to objections that I have seen that listed a number of roads scheduled to go to 20mph that did not have any street notice.
The answer if they are simply not there.
Why is that - another example of §2.3 being untrue,

Q14 Please supply the time of receipt by the council in the Inbox for each entry in the spreadsheet.

A14. This is not practicable to provide and without any other identification is considered irrelevant.

F14 This is wanted so the public including myself can match for themselves the email they sent, at say 2225 on 15-2-17 wilt the entry in the spreadsheet for that day and time.
It is very easy for the council to provide this, see below.
Note: the council is not being asked to create information.
It is merely being asked to produce the information it already has in a format that can be understood and used.
Please add the times to the spreadsheet.

It could of course provide the actual Inbox log itself - redacted where really necessary.
Please do this.

For the email objections, the council has an Inbox where all were received.
The Inbox will contain at least:
SUBJECT
SENDER NAME
SENDER EMAIL
DATE
TIME
The council can easily create an XLS spreadsheet with those columns from the Inbox.
Then it is simple to remove the sender name, and replace the full email address with the email domain.
Likewise for the acknowledgements the council will have a Sent box or Outbox.
It can easily create a similar XLS spreadsheet with the date and time of each acknowledgement.
Linking the Subject will allow linking each entry in one sheet with date and time received, with in the other the date and time of acknowledgement sent.

Q15 3 The TMAC report states:
§4.3.1 If a respondent has objected on more than one of the above categories then each category has been counted as an individual objection.
A number of respondents have objected via email on a single category, once per each area, on up to as many as all 9 categories, which gives rise to up to 27 responses per individual. Each of these has been counted as a single objection i.e. 27 objections were counted.

§5.1.1 The Areas in the north of the borough were allowed to have their say via an opinion survey as to whether they support a 20mph limit or not.
Areas 3, 4 & 5 have not been allowed to take part in an opinion survey and this is unfair.

Q15A What happened in the event that an Objector sent in one objection, for example objecting to no YES / NO vote on the basis that it was unfair and discriminatory, and then later sent in a further objection objecting to no YES / NO vote on the basis that it went against normal council practice and good practice?
Maybe a week later a third objection saying it was wrong to have a legal minimum statutory only process, given the scale and complexity of the proposal?

A15A. Three objections would have been counted individually. Whilst this means that repeat objectors would have had their objections counted a number of times, the Council emphasises that the objections themselves were considered on individual merit and not the number of such objections received. All received representations were considered carefully by the Council. For information on how the Council dealt with objections, please see sections 4.2 and 4.3 of the TMAC report.

F15A Why then did the Cabinet Member and Decision Taker state at a public meeting that it was both quantity and quality that would count?
Is the council really claiming that it does not matter how many people made an objection, or how many objection points were made?
How does that square with the clear government advice and democratic norms that the views of the public do count?

Question at 6 Feb 2017 Public Meeting: Why was the policy imposed in north Croydon when only 2% of the population felt it important enough to vote on?
Answer: The decision to implement the scheme was taken following a ‘Statutory Consultation’ process through which all objections were considered prior to a decision being taken. Everyone living or working in the area was entitled to have a say in that process; that so few people objected can be seen to indicate the broad level of satisfaction that existed with the council's decision.

Is the council really equating the fact of a low level of objection in Areas 1 and 2 with the "broad level of satisfaction that existed"?
What would be the statistical basis for this?
How is it known how many saw any of the 2500 (Area 1) and 4000 (Area 2) public notices on street here - compared with just 1500 for the whole of Areas 3, 4 and 5, with many more roads.

Given that for Areas 1 and 2, there were a total of 33 written objections, surely the fact of 100 times as many for Areas 3, 4 and 5 shows far more opposition - and far less support - here than in Areas 1 and 2, where the vote was only narrowly in favour?

Q15B How would this differ from another person who sent one email making all 3 of the above objections?

A15B. This would have been counted as a single response, but would had all of the objections it contained in the same way within the TMAC report.

Q15C How about 3 different people who sent in one each of the above?

A15C. Three responses, with all of the objections being considered.

Q15D If an email was sent in from Mr and Mrs Smith, for example, did that count as one objection or two?

A15D. One objection but, again, all the objections it contained would have been considered within the report.

Q15E Suppose they sent identical emails from the same email address, but signed by one and then the other?

A15E. There would have been two responses received, but with the objections considered within the report.

F15 So we now know that the method of counting objection points was inadequate and defective, and that it is likely to have significantly understated the true level of objection?

Even on this wrong basis the council adopted, I have added up the total number of points logged in the spreadsheet, and it comes to 22024 which is far more than 18862.
Why does the total the council reports not equal the number of "y" in the spreadsheet?

Yours sincerely,

Peter Morgan

Dear Information,

A week has passed since I last wrote with additional questions.

Kindly acknowledge this request, and confirm whether it will be treated as part of the original request, or as a new FOI Request.

Yours sincerely,

Peter Morgan

Information, Croydon Borough Council

Dear Mr Morgan,

Thank you for your email.

This has been passed to Mike Barton in our Streets Team to deal with as a service request.

He is not in the office until Monday but will respond upon his return.

Kind regards.

Jo

Jo Welch-Hall
Information Support Officer

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

Dear Information,

Thank you for the reply.
This is a Request for Information, rather than a Request for a Service.
However so long as the Information is provided promptly, it probably does not matter.

Yours sincerely,

Peter Morgan

Dear Croydon Borough Council,

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 'Croydon BLANKET20MPH PLANS - processing of OBJECTIONS - AREAS 3+4+5, Spring 2017'.

28-10-17: Questions submitted
2-11-17: Follow-up sent
2-11-17: LBC said is service request
2-11-17: assert is Request for Information
Nothing further received

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

Yours faithfully,

Peter Morgan

Derby, James, Croydon Borough Council

2 Attachments

Dear Mr Morgan

 

I write further to your email below requesting an internal review of your
"EIR request" as contained in your email of 28th October 2017 which
relates to "blanket20MPHPLANS". I note the said "EIR request" is further
correspondence to a previous EIR request and internal review that were
processed by the Council. I am also privy to other EIR requests and
general correspondence with the Council relating to the same subject
matter (blanket 20MPHPLANS); in particular I am aware of your EIR request
of 7th June 2017, the internal review response of 19th October 2017 and
your further request for internal review of 13th December 2017.

 

In undertaking this internal review I have considered the provisions of
the Environmental Information Regulations 2004, ICO guidance notes,  ICO
decision notices and decisions of the Information Tribunals. I have also
perused correspondence between the relevant service areas and the Council
Information team; I have then set out my decision below.

 

The Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR) give rights of public
access to information held by public authorities. The EIR (just as in the
Freedom of Information Act) covers and is only applicable to any recorded
information that is held by a public authority in England, Wales and
Northern Ireland. According to the ICO "recorded information includes
printed documents, computer files, letters, emails, photographs, and sound
or video recordings".  (See
https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/gui...)

 

Regulation 2 (a) of the 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 various requests for information about the
20MPH plan/consultation relates to the environment and land; it is
therefore a request to be processed under the EIR.

 

Under the EIR, once the public authority confirms that the information
requested is held, there is a presumption to disclose the information
subject however to any applicable exceptions under the EIR.  As mentioned
above, your current request for internal review is as a result of the
answers you were provided to following a previous EIR request. On 28th
October 2017, you asked for further information and also made further
comments which are contained in F1 - F15 in your said email of 28th
October 2017.

 

For ease of reference I have attached your email of 28t October 2017
containing your request for further information/further comments. On 2nd
December 2017, the information team informed you the request was
considered as general correspondence and therefore it was sent to the
service area to provide a response to you. On 2nd October 2017 you replied
as follows " Thank you for the reply. This is a Request for Information,
rather than a Request for a Service. However so long as the Information is
provided promptly, it probably does not matter".  Unfortunately you have
not received a response either from the Information team under the EIR or
from the service area as general correspondence.

 

Under the EIR a requestor is entitled to be provided with information if
held by a public authority within 20 working days from date of receipt of
the request; for general correspondence a response should be issued not
later than 14days from date of receipt of the correspondence. As you have
not received a response under the EIR nor the general correspondence route
I am of the view the Council has not complied with its obligations under
Regulation 5 (2) EIR by not providing you with a response within 20working
days.

 

A thorough perusal of your questions FI - F15 in the attached document
relates to issues about the 20MPH consultation carried out by the Council
in 2017; the Council, as expected consulted with relevant members of the
public and made relevant decisions. The Council provided information to
members of the public on the consultation in various ways including the
Traffic Management Advisory Committee reports which are available to the
public on the Council's website. As a resident of Croydon Council you have
engaged the Council's traffic management team on several occasions about
your concerns with the 20MPH consultation and the decision of the Council;
I am informed by the Council's traffic management team they have answered
your queries to the best of their abilities. I have also been informed
there have been over 200 email exchanges between you and the council's
traffic management team on the 200 MPH PLAN/Consultation. I note the my
colleague Sebastian Brun in his internal review response dated 15th
September 2017 (see attached) referred to the several exchange of
correspondence between and the Council regarding the issue of the 20MPH
PLAN. I also understand from the Council's traffic management team that
your request of 28th October 2017 has not raised any new issues which they
had not addressed in previous correspondence.

 

Regulation 12 (4) (b) of the EIR states that " 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 on this exception, "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". This exception is 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.  According tote ICO guidance the exception at
regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR can apply if the cost or burden of dealing
with a request is too great.   (Craven v The Information Commissioner and
the Department of Energy and Climate Change [2012] UKUT442 (AAC).

 

In line with the ICO Guidance on "Manifestly Unreasonable Requests", "in
assessing whether the cost or burden of dealing with a request is “too
great”, public authorities will need to consider the proportionality of
the burden or costs involved and decide whether they are clearly or
obviously unreasonable. This will mean taking into account all the
circumstances of the case including:

 

·         the nature of the request and any wider value in the requested
information being made publicly available;

·         the importance of any underlying issue to which the request
relates, and the extent to which responding to the request would
illuminate that issue;

·         the size of the public authority and the resources available to
it, including the extent to which the public authority would be distracted
from delivering other services; and

·         the context in which the request is made, which may include the
burden of responding to other requests on the same subject from the same
requester”.

 

In addition to this, the public authority must also consider how
proportionate the burden created by the request would be, and whether
complying with the request would involve an unreasonable diversion of
resources from the provision of public services.

 

I have considered your request (questions F1 – F15) in your email of 28
October 2017, I am of the view that the nature of the request and any
wider value in the requested information being made publicly available is
very minimal if not nil. The Council has on several occasions answered
questions relating to the 20MPH Plan to you and other members of the
public and has also public relevant information in the Traffic Management
Advisory Committee Report which is available to members of the public on
its website; I therefore do not see any wider value in any information
that may be disclosed to you. Responding to your questions F1 – F15 will
not shed further light to any of the issues relating to the 20 MPH Plan.
As stated in the internal review conducted by Mr Sebastian Brun, you did
issue the Council with a “letter before action” as a prerequisite for
issuing a Judicial Review regarding the 20 MPH process but you failed to
proceed with the matter. This implies you do not have a good case against
the Council.

 

Croydon Council is one of London’s largest local authority delivering
various services to its over 300,000 residents; the Council’s traffic
management team is a very busy team delivering services in line with its
various service delivery plan to ensure residents and motorist using
Croydon roads are safe. I am informed by the traffic management team that
your various requests and correspondence on the 20MPH Plan has put a lot
of burden on the service in responding to your requests on the same
subject matter.

 

Regulation 12 (4) (b) is a qualified exception therefore the Council must
consider the Public Interest Test. The public interest in maintaining this
exception lies in protecting the Council 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 place a strain on resources and get in the way of public
authorities delivering mainstream services or answering other requests.

 

There is some public interest in processing your request as this may
promote transparency and accountability, greater public awareness and
understanding of environmental matters, a free exchange of views, and more
effective public participation in environmental decision making, all of
which ultimately contribute to a better environment. Following a thorough
consideration of the pros and cons of the public interest, I am of the
view that the public interest in maintaining the exception overweighs the
public interest of disclosure especially as the council’s traffic
management team has expended a lot of hours in dealing with your requests
on this matter despite the overwhelming work pressure in the team. I do
not see any additional value the answers to your questions will provide if
made available; you have also not exercised your right to issue a judicial
review against the decision of the Council.

 

In summary, I am of the view that the exception in Regulation 14 (4) (b)
of the EIR is engaged and the Public interest Test is in favour of
maintaining the exception.

 

I know this is not the outcome you were expecting, if you however 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].

 

James Derby

Corporate Solicitor

Legal & Democratic Services

Resources Department

London Borough of  Croydon

Bernard Weatherhill House

8 Mint Walk

CR0 1EA

Tel: 020 8760 6000 Ext. 61359

Fax: 020 8760 5657

 

 

show quoted sections