Dear Croydon Borough Council,

On 25 September, I wrote to the Council enquiring of their “knowledge…and intentions” regarding the formal complaint apparently made to the planning department about my property, specifically the “…1st floor side facing windows. …”. I wrote again later the same day, asking for the reference number given to the formal complaint and the contact details of the enforcement officer dealing with it?

On 29 September, having received no response, I wrote to the Council again asking for the reference number and case officer details. Later that day, I received a response from the Council’s Enforcement & Trees Team Leader [Robert Snodin], informing me that a planning enforcement investigation had begun regarding my property and providing the case reference number and case officer details.

On 23 October, I wrote to the case officer asking to be updated with regard to the status of the Council's investigaton into the matter. I offered to provide information by email to assist, but heard nothing back.

On 31 October, the case officer informed me that “…After consultation with one of the senior planning officers I have also chosen not to pursue the matter regarding your property ….

I replied the same day, as follows:
“… Could you please explain why you have used the word 'also', since I am not aware of any other planning enforcement complaints about me or my property.

Could you also please provide the following information:
1. the details of the 'senior planning officer' with whom you have consulted on THIS matter,
2. the PLANNING GROUNDS on which the Council has 'chosen not to pursue the matter', WITHOUT investigation [i.e. without a site visit or any information gathering], and
3. the details of the Council officer responsible for making this DECISION.”

On 5 November, I chased the case officer for a response, copying Mr Snodin into the email. Apart from a ‘read receipt’ from Mr Snodin [6 November], I have heard nothing further from the Council on this matter.

Please provide copies of information showing:
1. what OTHER'decision' was the case officer referring to by the inclusion of the word 'also',
2. the details of the 'senior planning officer' with whom the case officer consulted on THIS case,
3. the PLANNING GROUNDS on which the Council has decided not to pursue the matter, WITHOUT investigation, and
4. the details of the DECISION-MAKER.

NOTE: it has been confirmed to me separately that the case officer is NOT involved in the planning decision making process.

Yours faithfully,

Stephen Whiteside

Information,

1 Atodiad

Dear Mr Whiteside,

 

Thank you for your email.

 

This has been passed to our complaints team who will respond to you no
later than 13 December 2017.  Your reference number is CASE4307667, please
quote this on any correspondence.

 

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

 

 

From: Stephen Whiteside
[[2]mailto:[FOI #446874 email]]
Sent: 16 November 2017 14:24
To: Information <[3][email address]>
Subject: Freedom of Information request - Planning Enforcement case
17/00668/NCC

 

Dear Croydon Borough Council,

 

On 25 September,  I wrote to the Council enquiring of their “knowledge…and
intentions” regarding the formal complaint apparently made to the planning
department about my property, specifically the “…1st floor side facing
windows. …”.  I wrote again later the same day, asking for the reference
number given to the formal complaint and the contact details of the
enforcement officer dealing with it?

 

On 29 September, having received no response, I wrote to the Council again
asking for the reference number and case officer details.  Later that day,
I received a response from the Council’s Enforcement & Trees Team Leader
[Robert Snodin], informing me that a planning enforcement investigation
had begun regarding my property and providing the case reference number
and case officer details.

 

On 23 October, I wrote to the case officer asking to be updated with
regard to the status of the Council's investigaton into the matter.  I
offered to provide information by email to assist, but heard nothing back.

 

On 31 October, the case officer informed me that “…After consultation with
one of the senior planning officers I have also chosen not to pursue the
matter regarding your property ….

 

I replied the same day, as follows:

“… Could you please explain why you have used the word 'also', since I am
not aware of any other planning enforcement complaints about me or my
property.

 

Could you also please provide the following information:

1. the details of the 'senior planning officer' with whom you have
consulted on THIS matter, 2. the PLANNING GROUNDS on which the Council has
'chosen not to pursue the matter', WITHOUT investigation [i.e. without a
site visit or any information gathering], and 3. the details of the
Council officer responsible for making this DECISION.”

 

On 5 November, I chased the case officer for a response, copying Mr Snodin
into the email.  Apart from a ‘read receipt’ from Mr Snodin [6 November],
I have heard nothing further from the Council on this matter.

 

Please provide copies of information showing:

1.   what OTHER'decision' was the case officer referring to by the
inclusion of the word 'also',

2.   the details of the 'senior planning officer' with whom  the case
officer consulted on THIS case,

3.   the PLANNING GROUNDS on which the Council has decided not to pursue
the matter, WITHOUT investigation, and

4.   the details of the DECISION-MAKER.

 

NOTE: it has been confirmed to me separately that the case officer is NOT
involved in the planning decision making process.

 

Yours faithfully,

 

Stephen Whiteside

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Please use this email address for all replies to this request:

[4][FOI #446874 email]

 

Is [5][Croydon Borough Council request email] the wrong address for Freedom of
Information requests to Croydon Borough Council? If so, please contact us
using this form:

[6]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/change_re...

 

Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on
the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:

[7]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/offi...

 

For more detailed guidance on safely disclosing information, read the
latest advice from the ICO:

[8]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/ico-...

 

Please note that in some cases publication of requests and responses will
be delayed.

 

If you find this service useful as an FOI officer, please ask your web
manager to link to us from your organisation's FOI page.

 

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------

 

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
2. mailto:[FOI #446874 email]
3. mailto:[email address]
4. mailto:[FOI #446874 email]
5. mailto:[Croydon Borough Council request email]
6. https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/change_re...
7. https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/offi...
8. https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/ico-...

Dear Information,

Your Ref : CASE4307667

Unfortunately, your 'complaints team' have sent their response to my private email address.

Could you please ensure that the Council's response to this REQUEST for information, which was not intended as a 'complaint', to be published on this [WhatDoTheyKnow] correspondence thread.

Thank you.

Yours sincerely,

Stephen Whiteside

Dear Information,

According to the Regulations, I should have received the Authority's response to this REQUEST, within 20 working days [i.e. by 15 December].

Could you please ensure that a full response is provided HERE [on the appropriate WhatDoTheyKnow correspondence thread], as soon as possible.

Yours sincerely,

Stephen Whiteside

Gadawodd Stephen Whiteside anodiad ()

On 18/12/2017 15:07, Information wrote to my private email address:

Dear Mr Whiteside,

Please see attached the response that was sent to your private email address on 7th December 2018.

As What Do They Know is a public forum and your request was actually a complaint, the Council logged it with our Complaints Team. Responses to complaints are not uploaded to public forums.

However, you are able to upload the response to WDTK should you wish to. You may however, wish to redact you email address and any personal details.

Kind regards.
...
Jo Welch-Hall
Information Support Officer

THIS WAS NOT A COMPLAINT, and I would be interested to hear from anyone else who has had a legitimate request for information treated as a 'complaint' by Croydon Council.

In the meantime, I will place the Council's 'findings' onto this correspondence thread, as they suggest.

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 'Planning Enforcement case 17/00668/NCC'.

The following is a copy of the relevant part of the Council’s response [07.12.17- CASE4307667 ], provided by its Head of Development Management, Pete Smith. [I have redacted personal data relating to the investigating officer.

“Planning Enforcement Investigation – 173 Upper Selsdon Road, South Croydon.

I refer to your e-mail dated the 16th November 2017 in respect of the above site and our investigation into the alleged breach of planning control. Your e-mail has been treated as a Stage 1 Complaint under the Council’s Corporate Complaints Procedure. ...
...
My Findings

Whilst I have been unable to discuss the issues you have raised with [REDACTED], I have looked at the planning enforcement case notes and can respond with the following in the hope that it will assist and provide further clarity for you.

The Council has a legal duty to investigate alleged breaches of planning control. Section 196 A-C of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) gives the local planning authority the power to authorise named officers to enter land specifically for enforcement purposes, to determine whether there is or has been any breach of planning control on the land. [REDACTED] is one such named officer.

As you are aware [REDACTED] was the investigating officer dealing with your complaint regarding an alleged unauthorised development at your neighbour’s property (175 Upper Selsdon Road). It would appear from the information included as part of the case file that your side windows (which were the subject of a separate complaint) were inspected by [REDACTED] when visiting your neighbour’s property. This investigation allowed [REDACTED] to gather the information deemed sufficient to return to the office and confirm with the senior planning officer (Ms. Nicola Townsend - Team Leader DM North) that the windows in question had been in place for some time and were not considered to be new development. This meant that there was no breach of planning control.

I believe that [REDACTED] used the word ‘also’ in the sentence to confirm that [REDACTED] reached a similar view as Nicola Townsend. The enforcement file (LBC Ref 17/00668/NCC) was then closed by my Planning Enforcement Team Leader (Robert Snodin).

Your email appears to suggest the Council has withheld information or has not been suitably transparent. It seems to me that we have been very clear and transparent. We received allegations of a breach of planning control at your property, the enforcement officer investigated, sought advice and concluded that there was no breach of planning control. I am satisfied [REDACTED] investigated the allegation correctly, behaved in an appropriate manner and carried out [REDACTED] duties responsibly and in accordance with good practice.

If you feel that your complaint has not been investigated properly or you wish to provide significant new information then you may complain to the next stage of the complaint procedure. ….”

My email of 16 November 2017 was in fact NOT a complaint, but a REQUEST FOR INFORMATION. Since the currently withheld information relates to the development of land, I consider that the request should be dealt with under the terms of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004.

This REQUEST was for COPIES of the information to which Mr Smith has apparently referred … rather than any INTERPRETATION of that information.

--- Please now provide COPIES of the information requested [redacted as appropriate], most if not all of which should be found within case notes in enforcement file 17/00668/NCC.

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

Yours faithfully,

Stephen Whiteside

Information,

Dear Mr Whiteside,

Thank you for your email.

As per the previous email from the Information Team, this was logged as a complaint and not an FOI. Therefore this cannot be reviewed under FOI guidelines.

However, this can be escalated to Complaints and you should find details of how to do this on your response letter.

If you have a request for information, under the FOI Act, please clearly set out your questions and we will log this as a new request.

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

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Stephen Whiteside

Dear IMs Welch-Hall,

This REQUEST was made under the FOIA/EIR.

That the Council chose to log it as a 'complaint' is the Council's problem!

If the outstanding information is not provided within the next 5 working days, I will submit a complaint to the Information Commissioner about the authority's handling of the REQUEST.

Yours sincerely,

Stephen Whiteside

Stephen Whiteside

Dear Ms Welch-Hall,

For information, I have now submitted a complaint to the Information Commissioner about this matter.

Yours sincerely,

Stephen Whiteside

Freedom of Information,

 

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

 

Lynda Fay

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,

Your Ref: F/CRT/10009502 ICO Ref: FS50737881

This request was submitted on 16 November 2017 !

Having received NOTHING of relevance from the Council, I complained to the Information Commissioner [ICO], who on 11 April wrote to the Council as follows:
"...Any public authority in receipt of such a request is under a duty to respond within 20 working days of receipt. As you have not yet issued a substantive response under the Act, please now do so within 10 working days of receipt of this letter. ..."

I have informed the ICO that you have FAILED to comply.

Yours sincerely,

Stephen Whiteside

Information,

Dear Mr Whiteside,

Our response to you has been sent to your private e-mail address, given the response contains personal information which is not appropriate to share on WDTK.

Kind regards,

Steven Borg
Information Coordinator
Croydon Council

Digital Council of the Year

ICT Client Unit (ICU)
Customer Transformation and Communications Services
Information Team
Resources Department
7th Floor, Zone B
Bernard Weatherill House
8 Mint Walk
Croydon CR0 1EA

For Subject Access Request queries please email - [email address]
For Freedom of Information Request queries please email - [email address]

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Stephen Whiteside

Dear Information,

You have continued to treat my request as a complaint, despite the advice/instruction from the ICO.

TO REPEAT ... from my request for internal review, dated 31 December 2017:

"...My email of 16 November 2017 was in fact NOT a complaint, but a REQUEST FOR INFORMATION. Since the currently withheld information relates to the development of land, I consider that the request should be dealt with under the terms of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004.
This REQUEST was for COPIES of the information to which Mr Smith has apparently referred … rather than any INTERPRETATION of that information.
--- Please now provide COPIES of the information requested [redacted as appropriate], most if not all of which should be found within case notes in enforcement file 17/00668/NCC. ..."

Yours sincerely,

Stephen Whiteside

Stephen Whiteside

Dear Information,

Your Ref: F/CRT/10009502 [??] ICO case ref: FS50737881

I understand that the Council has confirmed with the Information Commissioner, that my email earlier [today] is to be treated as a request for internal revue, under Regulation 11 of the EIR.

To remind those undertaking this [second] revue, my original request of 16 November 2017 asked [and advised] as follows:

"...Please provide copies of information showing:
1. what OTHER 'decision' was the case officer referring to by the inclusion of the word 'also',
2. the details of the 'senior planning officer' with whom the case officer consulted on THIS case,
3. the PLANNING GROUNDS on which the Council has decided not to pursue the matter, WITHOUT investigation, and
4. the details of the DECISION-MAKER.

NOTE: it has been confirmed to me separately that the case officer is NOT involved in the planning decision making process."

Yours sincerely,

Stephen Whiteside

Stephen Whiteside

Dear Information,

Your Ref: F/CRT/10009502

PLEASE NOTE, on 18 December 2017, I wrote to YOU as follows:

"According to the Regulations, I should have received the Authority's response to this REQUEST, within 20 working days [i.e. by 15 December].
Could you please ensure that a full response is provided HERE [on the appropriate WhatDoTheyKnow correspondence thread], as soon as possible. ..."

Please ensure that the outcome of the Council's internal review, as requested 30 April, is posted HERE, and NOT sent to my private address.

Yours sincerely,

Stephen Whiteside

Derby, James,

2 Atodiad

Dear Mr Whiteside

I am writing to inform you about a matter which you lodged a complaint with the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO); this relates to a EIR request you made to the Council (F/CRT/10009502) and the ICO Reference is FS50737881.

You will recall in the EIR request, you asked for copy of the enforcement file with Ref 17/00668/NCC and the Council refused to disclose the file to you on the ground that it was exempt from disclosure pursuant to Regulation 13 of the EIR.(personal information).

Following receipt of correspondence from the ICO, the Council was asked to review its previous decision regarding withholding the file; therefore a further assessment of the decision was undertaken by the Council. In undertaking the assessment, I perused the enforcement file and observed it contained three sets of information:

a. File note (pages I – 5)
b. Information between the Council and Mr Whiteside ( pages 6 – 180) c. Information between the Council and a 3rd party (pages 181 – 216)

It was noted that the file note contained file updates about the investigation carried out by the planning officer that conducted the investigation, it also contained the personal email address and personal mobile telephone number of the alleged offender. It was therefore concluded that the exception in Regulation 13 EIR will not apply to the file note contained in the enforcement file (pages 1 – 5) except the email address and mobile telephone number of the alleged offender. The Council informed the ICO she will disclose pages 1 – 5 of the enforcement file to you however the email address and telephone number of the alleged offender will be redacted. In this regard, please see attached pages 1 - 5 of the enforcement file with the relevant redactions pursuant to Regulation 13 of the EIR.

From the perusal of the file, it was also noted that pages 6 - 180 contains correspondence between you and the Council and does not contain information about any 3rd party. Whilst it is acknowledged you have these information already, it was agreed that these documents should still be disclosed to you as Regulation 13 EIR is not engaged to exempt it from disclosure. In this regard, please see attached pages 6 - 180 of the enforcement file.

The enforcement file also has documents in pages 181 - 216; it was noted they are correspondence between the Council and the alleged offender. These correspondence were exchanged following the Council's investigation of an offence under relevant provisions of the Town and Planning Act 1990 (as amended). The Council believes the correspondence were exchanged in confidence and therefore informed the ICO they were exempt from disclosure under Regulation 12 (5) (d) of the EIR. The Council will therefore not be disclosing pages 181 - 216 of the enforcement file to you.

The ICO will issue a Decision Notice on this matter and they will inform you of their final decision.

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

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Stephen Whiteside

Dear Croydon Borough Council,

I refer to Mr Derby's email of 23 October 2018.

Mr Derby says “... I am writing to inform you about a matter which you lodged a complaint with the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO); this relates to a EIR request you made to the Council (F/CRT/10009502) and the ICO Reference is FS50737881. ...”

He quite rightly says that in that request, I “ ... asked for copy of the enforcement file with Ref 17/00668/NCC ...” and tells us that the Council has now disclosed pages 1-180 of that enforcement file, and withheld pages 181-216.

Unfortunately, page 1 of the disclosed file clearly shows a file number 17/00521/DEV (top right) and the (redacted) information disclosed here in fact relates to a DIFFERENT request made to the Council (F/CRT/10009332) on 26 March 2018.
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/p...

I await your explanation as to how this ‘mix-up’ has occurred, and how the Council intends to correct it.

I also await the information requested as part of THIS request, which was submitted almost a year ago now, on 16 November 2017!

Yours faithfully,

Stephen Whiteside

Derby, James,

Dear Mr Whiteside

 

Your email below has been brought to my attention. I note your complaint
about disclosure to you of planning enforcement file 17/0521 instead of
enforcement file 17/00668/NCC. The ICO (FS50737881) has also brought this
to our attention and we have provided detailed response to them.

 

Following receipt of your email and the ICO’s letter, I had discussions
with the planning team that the reference number on the file disclosed to
you was 17/0521 and not 17/00668/NCC.  I underside the file with reference
17/0521relates to an enforcement matter which affects you and which was
considered by the Council’s complaints team under its complaints
procedure. I understand in your request for a review in one of your EIR
requests you stated the request was for copies of information to which a
‘Mr Smith’ was apparently referred and you further said that most if not
all of the information could be found within the case notes in enforcement
file 17/00668/NCC”.

 

I understand from the planning team that the issues about your reference
to Mr Smith were considered in the complaint letters (stage 1 and 2)
issued to you and these were recorded in enforcement file reference
17/0521 and not 17/00668/NCC; I am further informed by the planning team
that as the issues you raised were contained in file 17/0521 they provided
this file and not file number 17/00668/NCC thinking your meant file no
17/07521 and not 17/00668/NCC.  It is now clear that you were indeed
interested in file number 17/00668/NCC and not 17/0521. You will recall
the Council only disclosed information relating to you which are contained
in file 17/0521 save for the name of your neighbour and withheld other
information under Regulation 12 (5) (d) EIR The ICO has been provided with
further information why we believe the exception is engaged.

 

The Council has confirmed to the ICO that it holds enforcement file number
17/00668/NCC and has provided submissions why the file is exempt from
disclosure to you under relevant exceptions available under the EIR.

 

The Council states that it relies on its previous submissions on
Regulation 12 (5) (d) EIR and also state that enforcement file number
17/00668/NCC is further exempt from disclosure as it falls under the
exception in Regulation 12 (5) (b) of the EIR.

 

Regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR states that a public authority may refuse
to disclose information to the extent that is disclosure would adversely

affect –

• the course of justice, ability of a person to receive a fair trial or

• the ability of a public authority to conduct an inquiry of a criminal or
disciplinary nature.

 

The ICO in a plethora of Decision Notices have held “that the course of
justice element of the exception is wide in coverage, and accepts that it
can include information about civil investigations and proceedings”. See
(FER0742277 of 6th August 2018  - Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council).
Likewise the ICO in Decision Notice FER0716284 of 21 May 2018 - Dover City
Council) held that according to the ICO Guidance on Regulation 12 (5) (b)
“an inquiry of a criminal or disciplinary nature” is likely to include
information about investigations into potential breaches of legislation,
for example, planning law or environmental law".

 

According to the ICO in the Decision Notice cited above, “the successful
application of the exception (Regulation 12 (5) (b))  is dependent on a
public authority being able to demonstrate that the following three
conditions are met:

 

• the withheld information relates to one or more of the factors described
in the exception,

• disclosure would have an adverse effect on one or more of the factors
cited, and

• the public interest in maintaining the exception outweighs the public
interest in disclosure.

 

The information contained in enforcement file 17/00668/NCC relates to a
complaint by a member of the public regarding an allegation of breach of
planning legislation; consequently and as required under the Town and
Planning Act 1990, an investigation was conducted by the planning team to
establish whether or not the planning regulation was contravened and if
so, whether an "enforcement notice" under Section 172 of the Town and
Planning Act 1990 (as amended) should be issued against the alleged
offender. It is the Council's submission that this investigation is a
civil investigation which falls within the remit of "course of justice"
and "inquiry of a criminal or disciplinary nature" as contemplated in the
exception in Regulation 12 (5) (b) EIR.

 

It is the Council's submission that disclosure of the information
contained in enforcement file 17/00668/NCC to any member of the public
would have an adverse effect on  its ability to undertake an effective
investigation and to take formal action under its powers as local planning
authority as provided under the Town and Planning Act 1990 (as amended).
In addition, the Council is of the view that disclosure of the enforcement
file would not only prejudice the ability to take effective action in the
investigation but would also undermine the Council’s ability to take
similar action in the future.

 

Regulation 12(1)(b) EIR requires that, where the exception under
regulation 12(5)(b) is engaged, a public interest test should be carried
out to ascertain whether the public interest in maintaining the exception
outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.

 

The Council recognises that there is need for transparency in all its
processes and that it is important for the public to understand why the
Council has acted in a specific fashion. In this specific case the Council
asserts that it is likely that Mr Whiteside considers it to be in the
public interest to ensure that the Council is properly executing its
enforcement functions under the Town & Country Planning Act 1990.

 

Likewise there is a public interest in the Council maintaining the
exception in view of the need for the Council to serve the wider public
interest in being able to effectively enforce against breaches of planning
control. It is also important for the residents of the borough to be free
to report any purported breaches of planning control especially as the
Council does not have the resources to identify all breaches within the
borough and therefore relies on its residents to bring to its attention
cases of purported breaches of planning control. It is the Council's view
that disclosure of the enforcement file will discourage residents of the
borough from taking actions to support the Council. The Council notes that
in cases where an allegation of breach of planning control is proved, the
Town and Planning Act 1990 provides an opportunity for the offender to be
notified through an "enforcement notice" and for the offender to engage
with the Council to remedy the breach (where applicable). This ensures a
fair hearing is provided to the offender.

 

The Council has considered the possibility of redacting the personal
information of the complainant in the enforcement file pursuant to
Regulation 13 EIR; the Council is of the view this will not provide
protection to the complainant as the entire content of the correspondence
contained in the enforcement file will also reveal the identity of the
complainant and further it will not provide needed protection for the
enforcement process. The Council notes that the general public interest
inherent in this exception is strong due to the importance of maintaining
the ability of public authorities to conduct inquiries of a criminal or
disciplinary nature.

 

Whilst the Council recognises that you may have an interest in accessing
the information in the enforcement file, the public interest in this
context relates to the wider public interest rather than your individual
interest. The Council considers that there is a broader public interest in
protecting the ability of the Council to carry out inquiries without
unwarranted adverse effects.

 

In view of the above, the Council submits that the exception in Regulation
12 (5) (b) of the EIR is engaged and the public interest favours
maintaining the exception.

 

The ICO have been provided with our submissions on Regulation 12 (5) (b)
of the EIR and they will issue a Decision Notice on this matter.

 

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

 

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Looking for an EU Authority?

You can request documents directly from EU Institutions at our sister site AskTheEU.org . Find out more .

AskTheEU.org