Request information given to applicant of 18/00119/Ful. Application submission request date 12/02/2018.
Dear Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council,
I request full details be passed to me under the provisions of The Environmental Information Regulations 2004 and The Freedom of Information Act 2000, in respect of all planning advice sought from your Authority , by the applicant of planning permission numbered 18/00119/Ful. Planning submission date 12/02/2018.
The submitted application form shows that a request for pre planning advice has been made and was given by the Authority. An officer within the authority is named.
The 12/04/2018 decision date after the full planning submission, has now long passed and the information regarding details of this application are in the public domain.
I feel that this information does not hold commercially sensitive viable information for me or any other persons, the application being fully submitted for planning panel adjudication.
It appears not to hold sensitive, confidential or personal data under the relevant acts.
Since the pre planning stage and subsequent planning application submission,dated,12th February 2018, I have been aware that certain further enquires have been made by the agents or applicants of Darson Homes, to the planning authority’s officers in response of residents’ complaints and observations in respect of this application for planning permission.
It appears that extensive additional advice has been offered by the authority.
An amendment of design plans have been submitted as superseded by the applicant, Darson Homes, dated 21st June 2018.
This resubmission does not detail satisfactorily sufficient information to establish the full layout of the site including its design and access statements and proposals.
I feel by supplying these requested details to me, in respect of advice in an open and transparent manner, it will fully establish what has occurred between 12/2/2018, the pre planning advice stage and the date of the resubmission of the amended plans, made to the authority by the applicant.
I feel that I must point out that officers within the authority should act with impartiality and retain a high level of integrity and by disclosing what information has been freely given as the Planning Authority, highlights these actions.
It is a requirement of The Environmental Information Regulations 2004 and The Freedom of Information Act 2000, to provide data which is held under these circumstances, upon request.
Any advice given under these circumstances without payment or otherwise, appear not to fall within current legislation regarding legal privilege or any breach of client confidentiality.
I request details as follows:
1. Under the Environmental Information Regulations and Freedom of Information Act, please disclose all Tameside MBC planning information/advice given to the applicants for the Construction of 5 No. detached houses and associated works,18/00119/FUL including emails, phone calls, notes, daybooks, memos, letters etc. from the submission date 12th February 2018. Ie after pre planning advice, to date. 12/072018.
2. Please can you also disclose the names and roles of all Council Officer(s) involved (incl any elected Councillors) in the application advice stage. Give details of all Councillors, past present or deceased.
Please also include all names of previous officers who may no longer be in local authority employment or in the planning role whose advice was sought or given.
3. Can you provide full details of any ecological surveys carried out since the application date, 12/02/2018 or since the superseded resubmission date 21/06/2018, of the immediate area applicable to this planning application?
Details of any ecological survey is a requirement , as the area has been established to contain Wildlife as determined as such under the relevant Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.
4. Can you please disclose details of data held, and to who this information was communicated to, relating to the expiry target date for decision.ie 9/4/2018. In relation to phone calls, notes, daybooks, letters, memos emails etc. extending this time limit. beyond the normal time frame for such a decision.
Also give details of the decision maker allowing the extension of such.
I request to know why it has exceeded the Ministry of Housing Communities and Local Government guidelines in respect of determining this application.
5. Is this application subject to an Environmental Impact Assessment? Please give details.
Please note that across a number of appeals decision notices by the Information Commissioner's Office that the ICO consistently supports disclosure of pre-planning and subsequent follow up planning advice once the formal planning application has been made (as is the case here).
Please note that the LGA Probity in Planning guidance states:
"Confirmation that a written note should be made of all meetings. An officer should
make the arrangements for such meetings, attend and write notes. A note should also be taken of any phone conversations, and relevant emails recorded for the file.
Notes should record issues raised and advice given. The note(s) should be placed
on the file as a public record."
I understand that the legislation allows 20 working days for a detailed response from yourselves.
The original decision date of 12/04/2018 has now long passed.
Government guidelines state,"Once a planning application has been validated, the local planning authority should make a decision on the proposal as quickly as possible, and in any event within the statutory time limit unless a longer period is agreed in writing with the applicant."
It is well outside the 13 week time frame for a major build, let alone the 8 week time frame set aside for this limited build.
Due to the fact that this original target decision date of 12/04/2018 has now long passed and irrespective of the fact that superseded plans have recently been submitted, outside this date, the decision date still remains the same and is probably awaiting an allocated date for planning panel response, as such a swift and early reply is requested .
Yours faithfully,
David Buckle Mr.
Dear Mr D Buckle,
Freedom of Information Request
Unique Reference No: FOI 7764
Thank you for your email received 12 July 2018 requesting information
under the Freedom of Information Act. I understand your request to be as
follows:
Dear Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council, I request full details be
passed to me under the provisions of The Environmental Information
Regulations 2004 and The Freedom of Information Act 2000, in respect of
all planning advice sought from your Authority , by the applicant of
planning permission numbered 18/00119/Ful. Planning submission date
12/02/2018.
The submitted application form shows that a request for pre planning
advice has been made and was given by the Authority. An officer within the
authority is named.
The 12/04/2018 decision date after the full planning submission, has now
long passed and the information regarding details of this application are
in the public domain.
I feel that this information does not hold commercially sensitive viable
information for me or any other persons, the application being fully
submitted for planning panel adjudication.
It appears not to hold sensitive, confidential or personal data under the
relevant acts.
Since the pre planning stage and subsequent planning application
submission,dated,12th February 2018, I have been aware that certain
further enquires have been made by the agents or applicants of Darson
Homes, to the planning authority’s officers in response of residents’
complaints and observations in respect of this application for planning
permission.
It appears that extensive additional advice has been offered by the
authority.
An amendment of design plans have been submitted as superseded by the
applicant, Darson Homes, dated 21st June 2018.
This resubmission does not detail satisfactorily sufficient information to
establish the full layout of the site including its design and access
statements and proposals.
I feel by supplying these requested details to me, in respect of advice in
an open and transparent manner, it will fully establish what has occurred
between 12/2/2018, the pre planning advice stage and the date of the
resubmission of the amended plans, made to the authority by the applicant.
I feel that I must point out that officers within the authority should act
with impartiality and retain a high level of integrity and by disclosing
what information has been freely given as the Planning Authority,
highlights these actions.
It is a requirement of The Environmental Information Regulations 2004 and
The Freedom of Information Act 2000, to provide data which is held under
these circumstances, upon request.
Any advice given under these circumstances without payment or otherwise,
appear not to fall within current legislation regarding legal privilege or
any breach of client confidentiality.
I request details as follows:
1. Under the Environmental Information Regulations and Freedom of
Information Act, please disclose all Tameside MBC planning
information/advice given to the applicants for the Construction of 5 No.
detached houses and associated works,18/00119/FUL including emails, phone
calls, notes, daybooks, memos, letters etc. from the submission date 12th
February 2018. Ie after pre planning advice, to date. 12/072018.
2. Please can you also disclose the names and roles of all Council
Officer(s) involved (incl any elected Councillors) in the application
advice stage. Give details of all Councillors, past present or deceased.
Please also include all names of previous officers who may no longer be in
local authority employment or in the planning role whose advice was sought
or given.
3. Can you provide full details of any ecological surveys carried out
since the application date, 12/02/2018 or since the superseded
resubmission date 21/06/2018, of the immediate area applicable to this
planning application?
Details of any ecological survey is a requirement , as the area has been
established to contain Wildlife as determined as such under the relevant
Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.
4. Can you please disclose details of data held, and to who this
information was communicated to, relating to the expiry target date for
decision.ie 9/4/2018. In relation to phone calls, notes, daybooks,
letters, memos emails etc. extending this time limit. beyond the normal
time frame for such a decision.
Also give details of the decision maker allowing the extension of such.
I request to know why it has exceeded the Ministry of Housing Communities
and Local Government guidelines in respect of determining this
application.
5. Is this application subject to an Environmental Impact Assessment?
Please give details.
Please note that across a number of appeals decision notices by the
Information Commissioner's Office that the ICO consistently supports
disclosure of pre-planning and subsequent follow up planning advice once
the formal planning application has been made (as is the case here).
Please note that the LGA Probity in Planning guidance states:
"Confirmation that a written note should be made of all meetings. An
officer should make the arrangements for such meetings, attend and write
notes. A note should also be taken of any phone conversations, and
relevant emails recorded for the file.
Notes should record issues raised and advice given. The note(s) should be
placed on the file as a public record."
I understand that the legislation allows 20 working days for a detailed
response from yourselves.
The original decision date of 12/04/2018 has now long passed.
Government guidelines state,"Once a planning application has been
validated, the local planning authority should make a decision on the
proposal as quickly as possible, and in any event within the statutory
time limit unless a longer period is agreed in writing with the
applicant."
It is well outside the 13 week time frame for a major build, let alone the
8 week time frame set aside for this limited build.
Due to the fact that this original target decision date of 12/04/2018 has
now long passed and irrespective of the fact that superseded plans have
recently been submitted, outside this date, the decision date still
remains the same and is probably awaiting an allocated date for planning
panel response, as such a swift and early reply is requested .
Your request is being considered as a request under the Freedom of
Information Act 2000. In accordance with statutory requirements, it may
take up to 20 working days (approximately 4 weeks) for the Council to
consider your request and provide a formal response. Should this 20
working day deadline need to be extended you will be notified and kept
informed.
I have passed your request to Peter Taylor, Head of Planning, to respond
to your request and he can be contacted on 0161 342 5242 or at
[1][email address].
Please be advised that there may be a charge for your request and you will
be notified if this is the case before any costs are incurred. Should you
have any concerns about the way your response is being dealt with, please
do not hesitate to contact me in writing or by e-mail.
Regards,
Freedom of Information Support
Dear Mr Buckle
I am writing to confirm your Freedom of Information Request is in process
and we will endeavour to send as soon as possible.
We apologise for the delay and thank you for your patience.
Please do not hesitate to contact me with any queries.
Regards
Freedom of Information Support
Email Disclaimer [1]http://www.tameside.gov.uk/disclaimer
Confidentiality: This e-mail its contents and any attachments are intended
only for the above named. As this e-mail may contain confidential or
legally privileged information, if you are not, or suspect that you are
not the above named or the person responsible for delivering the message
to the above named, delete or destroy the email and any attachments
immediately. The contents of this e-mail may not be disclosed to nor used
by anyone other than the above named.
Security and Viruses: please note that we cannot guarantee that this
message or any attachment is virus free or has not been intercepted and
amended.
Monitoring: The Council undertakes monitoring of both incoming and
outgoing e-mails. You should therefore be aware that if you send an e-mail
to a person within the Council it may be subject to any monitoring deemed
necessary by the organisation from time to time. The views of the author
may not necessarily reflect those of the Council.
Access: As a public body, the Council may be required to disclose this
e-mail (or any response to it) under the Freedom of Information Act 2000,
unless the information in it is covered by one of the exemptions in the
Act.
References
Visible links
1. http://www.tameside.gov.uk/disclaimer
Dear Freedom Of Information Requests,
I acknowledge your generic response informing me of the delay in responding to my Freedom of Information Request.
Unfortunately the reason for this delay is not given.
May I remind you that by law my request should be dealt with promptly and in any event within 20 working days.
By delaying furnishing the information that I have requested is also extending the timescale of the request as I require the information to be up to date.
Without giving me any further explanation as to the delay, can this matter be expedited please. ?
Yours sincerely,
David Buckle Mr.
Dear Mr Buckle
Further to your email below please accept our apologies for the delay in responding to your Freedom of Information request. I have today chased this with the relevant officer who has confirmed that they will send your response within the next 5 working days. This is due to the coordination of collating the information you requested which has taken longer than anticipated along with a number of staff changes/holidays within the service.
Please do not hesitate to contact me with any queries.
Regards
Freedom of Information Support
Email Disclaimer http://www.tameside.gov.uk/disclaimer
Dear Mr Buckle
Request for Information – Freedom of Information
Unique Reference FOI 7764
Please find attached response in relation to your Freedom of Information
Request.
Kind regards
On behalf of Peter Taylor
Confidentiality: This e-mail its contents and any attachments are intended
only for the above named. As this e-mail may contain confidential or
legally privileged information, if you are not, or suspect that you are
not the above named or the person responsible for delivering the message
to the above named, delete or destroy the email and any attachments
immediately. The contents of this e-mail may not be disclosed to nor used
by anyone other than the above named.
Security and Viruses: please note that we cannot guarantee that this
message or any attachment is virus free or has not been intercepted and
amended.
Monitoring: The Council undertakes monitoring of both incoming and
outgoing e-mails. You should therefore be aware that if you send an e-mail
to a person within the Council it may be subject to any monitoring deemed
necessary by the organisation from time to time. The views of the author
may not necessarily reflect those of the Council.
Access: As a public body, the Council may be required to disclose this
e-mail (or any response to it) under the Freedom of Information Act 2000,
unless the information in it is covered by one of the exemptions in the
Act.
Dear Freedom Of Information Requests,
With reference to
Freedom of Information Request – Request for Information
Unique Reference No: FOI 7764
I note your response.
Perhaps it is me that is under the misapprehension that I have requested full information regarding the planning application 18/00119/FUL.
The details you have forwarded to me do not contain the information that I requested.
This was my 1 (first) request:
1.
Under the Environmental Information Regulations and Freedom of Information Act, please
disclose all Tameside MBC planning information/advice given to the applicants for the Construction of 5 No. detached houses and associated works, 18/00119/FUL
Including emails, phone calls, notes, daybooks, memos, letters etc. from the Submission date 12th February (i.e. after pre-planning advice, to date. 12/07/2018).
You have submitted in your response eight emails, 3 of which are duplicated. I must question the response time taken to pass these basic details to me, which appear to have been compiled for your distribution on the 15th August 2018. My request was 12th July 2018.
These emails do not cover the response request that I require. I request information as highlighted above. Your response does not include this information, information that I believe you hold in relation to the Planning Application.
It is clear from some of the emails that you have submitted that in depth conversations deliberations and advice has been sought and offered by various persons within the planning Authority and the agent, with Jason Dugdale acting as the applicants agent, ie. Wiplows..
It is apparent that Jason Dugdale was a senior planning officer with Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council, the planning authority, until recently having left the employ to become a director of Wiplows.
This is obvious from the rapport and the informality of emails between officers and himself.
In response to me you further state,
The consideration of the application is nevertheless within the spirit of the advice provided in Paragraph 38 of the National Planning Policy Framework which states that
“Local planning authorities should work proactively with applicants to secure developments,
that will improve the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area. Decision maker at every level should seek to approve applications for sustainable development where possible.”
This has obviously been discussed, there is a predetermination in this statement and no impartiality. Where is this information held? Who when and where was it discussed?
Who has made the decision that this development which if allowed, will be beneficial and improve the area? It will be overdeveloped. I thought the democracy of Council officers made these decisions. Where is this information, which was discussed held?
Mr Dugdale makes reference to the in depth conversations that he has had with the planning authority and makes a point of stating that he has been informed that OL4 permissions should not be a problem.
Where is all this information held and referenced?
Why have these details not been forwarded to me as per my FOI request?
Emails make reference to the restructuring of the design of the road approach to the site, the diversion of footpaths, the provisions of the open space assessment not being seen as a problem by the authority, where is the information held when these discussions were undertaken?
Why have these details not been passed to me under this request?
May I reiterate previously highlighted information that I forwarded to you with my initial request:
Please note that across a number of appeals decision notices by the Information Commissioner's Office that the ICO consistently supports disclosure of pre-planning and subsequent follow up planning advice once the formal planning application has been made (as is the case here).
Please note that the LGA Probity in planning guidance states:
"Confirmation that a written note should be made of all meetings. An officer should
make the arrangements for such meetings, attend and write notes. A note should also be taken of any phone conversations, and relevant emails recorded for the file.
Notes should record issues raised and advice given. The note(s) should be placed
on the file as a public record."
A meeting can be and is determined as telephone conversations too.
As you can clearly see there are anomalies that are consistent with information that is available but for some reason withheld or not forwarded as per my request.
It may be the case of a misunderstanding between us. However the information which I have requested and is obviously available has not been forwarded to me, I do not know if this is an oversight or a deliberate ploy to withhold information which I feel is available under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and an offence under the Act to withhold such information.
I must feel that it is an oversight on your behalf and give you the opportunity of providing this information which clearly exists. If you think that you have satisfied the requirement of the Act and cannot assist further I request that you consider this update to you a requirement for official review of my Freedom of Information request .Please pass the matter to
Ms Sandra J Stewart,
Borough Solicitor, at Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council, who I believe is empowered to carry out such review.
May I also reiterate that the information should be current and up to date as much as possible at the time of replying.
David Buckle Mr.
Yours sincerely,
David Buckle
Dear Mr Buckle,
Thank you for your email below, we will address the points you have raised and your correspondence has been forwarded to the service who will endeavour to respond within 10 working days.
Please do not hesitate to contact me with any queries.
Yours sincerely,
Freedom of Information Support
Email Disclaimer http://www.tameside.gov.uk/disclaimer
Dear Freedom Of Information Requests,
With reference to
Freedom of Information Request – Request for Information Unique Reference No: FOI 7764 I note your response.
Perhaps it is me that is under the misapprehension that I have requested full information regarding the planning application 18/00119/FUL.
The details you have forwarded to me do not contain the information that I requested.
This was my 1 (first) request:
1.
Under the Environmental Information Regulations and Freedom of Information Act, please disclose all Tameside MBC planning information/advice given to the applicants for the Construction of 5 No. detached houses and associated works, 18/00119/FUL Including emails, phone calls, notes, daybooks, memos, letters etc. from the Submission date 12th February (i.e. after pre-planning advice, to date. 12/07/2018).
You have submitted in your response eight emails, 3 of which are duplicated. I must question the response time taken to pass these basic details to me, which appear to have been compiled for your distribution on the 15th August 2018. My request was 12th July 2018.
These emails do not cover the response request that I require. I request information as highlighted above. Your response does not include this information, information that I believe you hold in relation to the Planning Application.
It is clear from some of the emails that you have submitted that in depth conversations deliberations and advice has been sought and offered by various persons within the planning Authority and the agent, with Jason Dugdale acting as the applicants agent, ie. Wiplows..
It is apparent that Jason Dugdale was a senior planning officer with Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council, the planning authority, until recently having left the employ to become a director of Wiplows.
This is obvious from the rapport and the informality of emails between officers and himself.
In response to me you further state,
The consideration of the application is nevertheless within the spirit of the advice provided in Paragraph 38 of the National Planning Policy Framework which states that “Local planning authorities should work proactively with applicants to secure developments, that will improve the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area. Decision maker at every level should seek to approve applications for sustainable development where possible.”
This has obviously been discussed, there is a predetermination in this statement and no impartiality. Where is this information held? Who when and where was it discussed?
Who has made the decision that this development which if allowed, will be beneficial and improve the area? It will be overdeveloped. I thought the democracy of Council officers made these decisions. Where is this information, which was discussed held?
Mr Dugdale makes reference to the in depth conversations that he has had with the planning authority and makes a point of stating that he has been informed that OL4 permissions should not be a problem.
Where is all this information held and referenced?
Why have these details not been forwarded to me as per my FOI request?
Emails make reference to the restructuring of the design of the road approach to the site, the diversion of footpaths, the provisions of the open space assessment not being seen as a problem by the authority, where is the information held when these discussions were undertaken?
Why have these details not been passed to me under this request?
May I reiterate previously highlighted information that I forwarded to you with my initial request:
Please note that across a number of appeals decision notices by the Information Commissioner's Office that the ICO consistently supports disclosure of pre-planning and subsequent follow up planning advice once the formal planning application has been made (as is the case here).
Please note that the LGA Probity in planning guidance states:
"Confirmation that a written note should be made of all meetings. An officer should make the arrangements for such meetings, attend and write notes. A note should also be taken of any phone conversations, and relevant emails recorded for the file.
Notes should record issues raised and advice given. The note(s) should be placed on the file as a public record."
A meeting can be and is determined as telephone conversations too.
As you can clearly see there are anomalies that are consistent with information that is available but for some reason withheld or not forwarded as per my request.
It may be the case of a misunderstanding between us. However the information which I have requested and is obviously available has not been forwarded to me, I do not know if this is an oversight or a deliberate ploy to withhold information which I feel is available under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and an offence under the Act to withhold such information.
I must feel that it is an oversight on your behalf and give you the opportunity of providing this information which clearly exists. If you think that you have satisfied the requirement of the Act and cannot assist further I request that you consider this update to you a requirement for official review of my Freedom of Information request .Please pass the matter to Ms Sandra J Stewart, Borough Solicitor, at Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council, who I believe is empowered to carry out such review.
May I also reiterate that the information should be current and up to date as much as possible at the time of replying.
David Buckle Mr.
Yours sincerely,
David Buckle
Dear Freedom Of Information Requests,
This data request is now long overdue and in breach of the regulations.
I have asked for information which I believe is held. This data has been withheld from me.
Basic information has been passed to me previously, as a result of my original request, which is clearly not the information that I have requested. This is not satisfactory.
The initial request was responded to well outside of the legal time frame for such information request.
My subsequent follow up requesting clarification of details was acknowledged, giving you a reasonable time to respond.
You have failed to respond and I now feel are in breach of the legislation on both providing details as requested under the Freedom of Information Act and also failing to respond within the statutory time frame.
The initial request was made in an attempt to negate the claim that the whole pre planning advice and post planning advice proceedings have been made in open, clear and transparent manner. The land sales which this planning application relates to was completed without full public consultation or any real public involvement, it was completed behind closed doors, which leads itself open to allegations of improper practice and corruption.
There are many questions left to answer by the Authority of which many could have been answered by resolving this FOI request. However as time now drags on and more information is forthcoming from various other sources which points to extensive collaborations between the applicant/ developer and the Planning Authority.
I have recently received an email, 14092018, outside of this FOI request, from a senior planning officer, which confirms that consultations are still going ahead with the applicant and the planning Authority.
Part of this email states, “I have asked that certain amendments be made to the plans (for example: although amended previously, the plan showing the proposed site layout is still annotated to state that the traffic barrier at the end of Grove Street would be replaced, which is incorrect and should be deleted; and, there are errors in the submitted Open Land Assessment) so that any decision is consistent with the submission.”
None of the post planning application advice has been forwarded to me.
I require a substantive response, ideally by way of a graduated timeline beginning with the pre application advice and continuing to the most current up to date post planning advice. May I again reiterate what the Information Commissioners Office openly support?
“ICO consistently supports disclosure of pre-planning and subsequent follow up planning advice once the formal planning application has been made (as is the case here).
Please note that the LGA Probity in planning guidance states:
Confirmation that a written note should be made of all meetings.
An officer should make the arrangements for such meetings, attend and write notes.
A note should also be taken of any phone conversations, and relevant emails recorded for the file.
Notes should record issues raised and advice given. The note(s) should be placed on the file as a public record."
A meeting can be and is determined as telephone conversations too”
As I feel that you are now in breach of the relevant parts of the act I now request that you consider this update to you a requirement for an official review, under the act of my Freedom of Information request.
Please pass the matter to Ms Sandra J Stewart, Borough Solicitor, at Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council, who I believe is empowered to carry out such review.
May I also reiterate that the information that I still require should be current and up to date as much as possible at the time of replying.
Yours sincerely,
David Buckle Mr
Dear Mr Buckle,
Thank you for your email.
Please be assured that your request is being dealt with, we are investigating the points you have raised and we will contact you in due course.
If you have any queries please do not hesitate to contact me.
Regards,
Freedom of Information Support
Email Disclaimer http://www.tameside.gov.uk/disclaimer
This data request is now long overdue and in breach of the regulations.
I have asked for information which I believe is held. This data has been withheld from me.
Basic information has been passed to me previously, as a result of my original request, which is clearly not the information that I have requested. This is not satisfactory.
The initial request was responded to well outside of the legal time frame for such information request.
My subsequent follow up requesting clarification of details was acknowledged, giving you a reasonable time to respond.
You have failed to respond and I now feel are in breach of the legislation on both providing details as requested under the Freedom of Information Act and also failing to respond within the statutory time frame.
The initial request was made in an attempt to negate the claim that the whole pre planning advice and post planning advice proceedings have been made in open, clear and transparent manner. The land sales which this planning application relates to was completed without full public consultation or any real public involvement, it was completed behind closed doors, which leads itself open to allegations of improper practice and corruption.
There are many questions left to answer by the Authority of which many could have been answered by resolving this FOI request. However as time now drags on and more information is forthcoming from various other sources which points to extensive collaborations between the applicant/ developer and the Planning Authority.
I have recently received an email, 14092018, outside of this FOI request, from a senior planning officer, which confirms that consultations are still going ahead with the applicant and the planning Authority.
Part of this email states, “I have asked that certain amendments be made to the plans (for example: although amended previously, the plan showing the proposed site layout is still annotated to state that the traffic barrier at the end of Grove Street would be replaced, which is incorrect and should be deleted; and, there are errors in the submitted Open Land Assessment) so that any decision is consistent with the submission.”
None of the post planning application advice has been forwarded to me.
I require a substantive response, ideally by way of a graduated timeline beginning with the pre application advice and continuing to the most current up to date post planning advice. May I again reiterate what the Information Commissioners Office openly support?
“ICO consistently supports disclosure of pre-planning and subsequent follow up planning advice once the formal planning application has been made (as is the case here).
Please note that the LGA Probity in planning guidance states:
Confirmation that a written note should be made of all meetings.
An officer should make the arrangements for such meetings, attend and write notes.
A note should also be taken of any phone conversations, and relevant emails recorded for the file.
Notes should record issues raised and advice given. The note(s) should be placed on the file as a public record."
A meeting can be and is determined as telephone conversations too”
As I feel that you are now in breach of the relevant parts of the act I now request that you consider this update to you a requirement for an official review, under the act of my Freedom of Information request.
Please pass the matter to Ms Sandra J Stewart, Borough Solicitor, at Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council, who I believe is empowered to carry out such review.
May I also reiterate that the information that I still require should be current and up to date as much as possible at the time of replying.
Yours sincerely,
David Buckle Mr
Dear Freedom of Information Support
I have just received your email to me as follows:
Dear Mr Buckle,
Thank you for your email.
Please be assured that your request is being dealt with, we are investigating the points you have raised and we will contact you in due course.
If you have any queries please do not hesitate to contact me.
Regards,
Freedom of Information Support
My request to you was for this FOI request go to official review, due to the inordinate amount of time it has taken to forward details of this request. Can you confirm that it has gone for review?
The points that you say you are investigating have existed since the date of the original request and are not new. This information should have been disseminated and forwarded some time ago.
Yours David Buckle Mr.
Dear Mr Buckle
Request for Information – Freedom of Information
Unique Reference FOI 7764
Please find attached response in relation to your Freedom of Information
Request.
Kind regards
On behalf of Peter Taylor
Confidentiality: This e-mail its contents and any attachments are intended
only for the above named. As this e-mail may contain confidential or
legally privileged information, if you are not, or suspect that you are
not the above named or the person responsible for delivering the message
to the above named, delete or destroy the email and any attachments
immediately. The contents of this e-mail may not be disclosed to nor used
by anyone other than the above named.
Security and Viruses: please note that we cannot guarantee that this
message or any attachment is virus free or has not been intercepted and
amended.
Monitoring: The Council undertakes monitoring of both incoming and
outgoing e-mails. You should therefore be aware that if you send an e-mail
to a person within the Council it may be subject to any monitoring deemed
necessary by the organisation from time to time. The views of the author
may not necessarily reflect those of the Council.
Access: As a public body, the Council may be required to disclose this
e-mail (or any response to it) under the Freedom of Information Act 2000,
unless the information in it is covered by one of the exemptions in the
Act.
We work to defend the right to FOI for everyone
Help us protect your right to hold public authorities to account. Donate and support our work.
Donate Now
Gadawodd David Buckle anodiad ()
This request was made due to a disputed new build, 5 number, three storey house, planning application.
The applicant intends to build on land which is in effect green belt /open green space, which is contrary to local planning regulations.
From information the Requester, ( Myself) has obtained it appears that there should be more data information on file held by the Local Authority. They sent what they say pertains to this request. I cannot dispute this at the moment.
An additional FOI requesting is being prepared in order to obtain further up to date information.
Please see "Save The Backfield, Tameside" web site for further information.
Many thanks to WDTK.com website for assistance in preparation of this request.