Who is responsible for future Olympic Stadium enhancements

Rich Pemberton made this Rhyddid Gwybodaeth request to London Legacy Development Corporation

This request has been closed to new correspondence from the public body. Contact us if you think it ought be re-opened.

Roedd y cais yn rhannol lwyddiannus.

Dear London Legacy Development Corporation,

West Ham United Vice-Chairman Karren Brady recently told press that West Ham is looking to expand the seating capacity of the Olympic Stadium from 54,000 to 60,000.

Under the terms of the agreement(s) with West Ham United, please advise the following:

1. Aside from planning permissions, who is the authority and/or decision maker (from hereon, "The Authority") for any stadium works? This question is aimed at confirming whether it is the Grantor or otherwise (please specify), and who specifically has responsibility for such decisions.

2. What is the process by which West Ham must seek to secure agreement from The Authority for stadium improvements to be made?

3. Are consultations made with other tenants, and how are their views taken into consideration?

4. Who would be responsible for funding any agreed expansion of the seating capacity of the Olympic Stadium in football mode, and are their any circumstances that change this?

5. Under what circumstances are public funds - by which I mean E20, LLDC, local authority, government or other funds provided or supplemented by the public purse - used for stadium enhancements? Please constrain this answer to football use only.

My thanks in anticipation of an early response.

Yours faithfully,

Rich Pemberton

foi, London Legacy Development Corporation

Dear Mr Pemberton,

I can confirm that your request for information has been received and a response will be sent to you within 20 working days on (5 February 2016).

Your reference for this request is 15-085.

Yours sincerely,

Rachel Massey

on behalf of
Rachael Clauson
FOI/EIR Coordinator
London Legacy Development Corporation
Level 10
1 Stratford Place, Montfichet Road
London
E20 1EJ

Email: [LLDC request email]
Website: www.QueenElizabethOlympicPark.co.uk

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

foi, London Legacy Development Corporation

1 Atodiad

Dear Mr Pemberton.

Please find attached our response to your information request ref: 15-085.

Yours sincerely

Rachael

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Dear Rachael,

Thanks for your reply. I note however that answer 4 contains a factual inaccuracy and doesn't address the question asked; q5 has also been inadequately addressed.

Please would you provide an answer based in the context of the question. In football mode, the stadium supports not 60,0000 supporters but 54,000. I am seeking to clarify whether - under the terms of the existing agreement - whether the proposed expansion referred to by Mrs Brady would be funded by West Ham, E20, or whether there is no such provision.

Would you also expand on your answer to q5 in the context of the agreement with West Ham. I believe there are circumstances outlined in the contract that require the Grantor to fund improvements regardless of ROI. Please state clearly these circumstances, and in particular address the context of the question which the proposed capacity expansion in football mode.

I would be grateful for a rapid turnaround given that the initial 20 days is up tomorrow.

Yours sincerely,

Rich Pemberton

Dear Rachel,

I am writing to request an internal review of London Legacy Development Corporation's handling of my FOI request 'Who is responsible for future Olympic Stadium enhancements'.

Whilst an initial answer was provided (just) within the 20 days the law requires, I have received no response whatsoever to my message of 4 February requesting fuller and more accurate answers than those provided.

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

Yours sincerely,

Rich Pemberton

foi, London Legacy Development Corporation

Dear Mr Pemberton,

My apologies for the delay in responding to your request. I can confirm that your request of 19 February for an internal review has been received. An independent panel is being assembled to review your complaint.

Your reference for this request is 15-085 IR.

Yours sincerely,

Rachael

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Dear Rachel,

1. Would you please advise the schedule for the internal review a sap. This request is nearly 3 months old now.

2. I note that West Ham United have now publicly announced plans for the football mode to be extended to 60,000. As this is now a confirmed project, presumably all my questions can be simply answered with the facts of what happened in this case. Please would you ensure this information provided without delay.

3. Finally, West Ham has also announced that planning permission for the digital wraparound has been applied for. Would you please include in your answer how this stadium improvement has been funded: as part of the conversion project, separately in line with the answers provided to 2. above, or another way.

Yours sincerely,

Rich Pemberton

foi, London Legacy Development Corporation

Dear Mr Pemberton,

Your internal review request was received on 19 February, 25 working days ago. The review panel are finalising their report findings and recommendations this week, it will then be circulated for information and comments to senior management and will then be approved by the Executive Director of Finance and Corporate Services. If there are any questions during these stages, they will need to be addressed before the review is approved. The response will be with you as soon as possible.

In relation to your question below in regard to the wrap, I confirm that your request for information has been received and a response will be sent to you within 20 working days [26 April 2016]. Your reference for this request is 16026.

Yours sincerely

Rachael

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Dear Rachel,

It is now 45 days since my initial request (and I find it slightly frivolous that a new RFI has been raised re the wrap around when it is pertinent to this request) and I have still not had an appropriate response. Please ensure that a full response is with me by the end of the week, or I will have no choice but to ask the Information Commissioner to intervene.

Yours sincerely,

Rich Pemberton

foi, London Legacy Development Corporation

Dear Mr Pemberton,

I apologise for the delay in completing the internal review.

Please be assured that the panel is actively working on this and we will get back to you at the earliest opportunity.

Regards,

Rachael

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Dear Rachel,

I can only presume the date you wrote your last response on was highly apposite.

By my calculations it is now 73 working days since I made my request. Part of it remains unanswered without explanation, part of your response remains factually incorrect and part of it is inadequately addressed.

I have submitted a complaint to the ICO, so I would welcome the information being provided at the earliest opportunity without the need to continue to pursue their assistance.

Yours sincerely,

Rich Pemberton

Rachael Clauson, London Legacy Development Corporation

I am currently out of the office until 18 April 2016.

 

I will not have access to this mailbox during this period.

 

For enquiries relating to:

 

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) or Environment Information Regulation
(EIR) requests, please redirect your email to:

[LLDC request email]

 

Otherwise I will respond to your email on my return.

 

This communication and the information it contains is intended for the
addressee only. It may be confidential, legally privileged and protected
by law. Unauthorised use, copying or disclosure of any of it may be
unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please contact
me immediately by email or telephone and then delete the e-mail and its
attachments from your system. This email and any attachments have been
scanned for viruses by Symantec and on leaving the London Legacy
Development Corporation they were virus free. No liability will be
incurred for direct, special or indirect or consequential damages arising
from alteration of the contents of this message by a third party or as a
result of any virus contained within it or attached to it. The London
Legacy Development Corporation may monitor traffic data. For enquiries
please call 020 3288 1800.
London Legacy Development Corporation, Level 10, 1 Stratford Place,
Montfichet Road, London, E20 1EJ.

www.queenelizabetholympicpark.co.uk
______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
______________________________________________________________________

foi, London Legacy Development Corporation

1 Atodiad

Dear Mr Pemberton.

Please find attached our response to your information request ref: 16026

Yours sincerely

Rachael

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Dear Rachel,

Welcome back. It is now 81 working days since I first made this request. I am still awaiting a full response, and there seems no sign of the internal review.

Please provide an update as soon as possible, which should confirm that the internal review has completed and when I shall be receiving the information requested.

Yours sincerely,

Rich Pemberton

Dear Rachael,

A reminder that it has now been 89 working days since I made this request. As you know I am awaiting an internal review into the incomplete response.

As the review clearly hasn't happened to date, please additionally review your answers to questions 1 and 2.

Question 1 asked "who specifically [role] has responsibility for such decisions?" - this remains unanswered.

Question 2 asked "What is the process by which West Ham must seek to secure agreement from The Authority for stadium improvements to be made?" to which you replied, "West Ham United may make proposals for consideration by the Grantor." This does not describe a process, merely a trigger for a process. What is the process through which agreement is secured?

Yours sincerely,

Rich Pemberton

Rachael Clauson, London Legacy Development Corporation

I am currently out of the office until 16 May 2016.

 

I will not have access to this mailbox during this period.

 

For enquiries relating to:

 

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) or Environment Information Regulation
(EIR) requests, please redirect your email to:

[LLDC request email]

 

Otherwise I will respond to your email on my return.

 

This communication and the information it contains is intended for the
addressee only. It may be confidential, legally privileged and protected
by law. Unauthorised use, copying or disclosure of any of it may be
unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please contact
me immediately by email or telephone and then delete the e-mail and its
attachments from your system. This email and any attachments have been
scanned for viruses by Symantec and on leaving the London Legacy
Development Corporation they were virus free. No liability will be
incurred for direct, special or indirect or consequential damages arising
from alteration of the contents of this message by a third party or as a
result of any virus contained within it or attached to it. The London
Legacy Development Corporation may monitor traffic data. For enquiries
please call 020 3288 1800.
London Legacy Development Corporation, Level 10, 1 Stratford Place,
Montfichet Road, London, E20 1EJ.

www.queenelizabetholympicpark.co.uk
______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
______________________________________________________________________

foi, London Legacy Development Corporation

1 Atodiad

Dear Mr Pemberton,

Please find attached our response to your internal review request in relation to your original request 15-085.

I note that your internal review request was received on 19 February 2016, 53 working days ago as at 6 May, and your original request 15-085 was made on 8 January 2016 and our response was sent on 4 February 2016 (19 working days later).

In relation to your request for a review of the answers to questions 1 and 2 provided in our response 15-085, this will be treated as a separate internal review.

Yours sincerely
Rachel Massey

On behalf of
Rachael Clauson
FOI/EIR Coordinator
London Legacy Development Corporation
Level 10
1 Stratford Place, Montfichet Road
London
E20 1EJ

Email: [LLDC request email]
Website: www.QueenElizabethOlympicPark.co.uk

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Dear Rachel,

Thanks very much for the details of the internal review. I look forward to the report of the second review, which I hope won't take another 53 working days.

I wish to comment on the review, however. Whilst the review of question 4 quite reasonably points to the Concession Agreement for its answer, the suggestion that the stadium already holds 60,000 is misleading in the context of the question I asked.

I am already aware that in non-football mode the stadium capacity is 60,000, but in order to comply with sighting and other requirements of the Premier League and UEFA this is necessarily reduced to 54,000 for football.

The context for the question is established at the start of my request: "West Ham United Vice-Chairman Karren Brady recently told press that West Ham is looking to expand the seating capacity of the Olympic Stadium from 54,000 to 60,000."

Given that Brady had announced this to the press it is reasonable to assume E20 LLP was at least aware of such a proposal, and therefore a more specific answer might have been provided, especially in the review report.

Finally, notwithstanding your notes regarding lapsed days on procedure triggers, it remains a fact that if I were to consider this internal review as providing adequate answers it has taken 90 working days to reach this point. I raised an internal review request because no-one bothered to reply to my message of 4 February 2016. The LLDC continues to attempt to delay and obfuscate the true facts surrounding the Olympic Stadium and West Ham, and it will only prompt more and more FOI requests if this practice does not cease.

Yours sincerely,

Rich Pemberton

foi, London Legacy Development Corporation

1 Atodiad

Dear Mr Pemberton.

Please find attached our response to the internal review for questions 1 and 2 of your request 15-085.

Yours sincerely

Rachael

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Dear Rachael,

I refer to my mail of 6 May 2016, which remains unaddressed; I accept that I did not explicitly invite a response but feel that I did make clear that the question remained unanswered.

I wrote: "Whilst the review of question 4 quite reasonably points to the Concession Agreement for its answer, the suggestion that the stadium already holds 60,000 is misleading in the context of the question I asked ... The context for the question is established at the start of my request: "West Ham United Vice-Chairman Karren Brady recently told press that West Ham is looking to expand the seating capacity of the Olympic Stadium from 54,000 to 60,000." Given that Brady had announced this to the press it is reasonable to assume E20 LLP was at least aware of such a proposal, and therefore a more specific answer might have been provided, especially in the review report."

I have still not received a response to this question. Perhaps I could put it more plainly.

The stadium in football mode was originally stated as being 54,000 due to regulatory constraints of relevant football bodies. Karren Brady has since told the press that West Ham wanted to expand this to 60,000. If this has been achieved, please confirm who was responsible for its funding and, if more than one party, to what proportion. If it has not been achieved, then your answer remains misleading and doesn't address the question I asked.

Please note this is NOT a new request, but a further clarification on one that remains unanswered.

Yours sincerely,

Rich Pemberton

Dear Rachael,

In further clarification, I'd like to request the LLDC answer this specific question in relation to my points in the previous mail.

It is contended that the E20 LLP should make (at least) contribution to stadium enhancements where these benefit all users of the stadium. Given that restrictions on capacity were only ever present for football mode, Karren Brady's claims of capacity enhancements to 60,000 are therefore to West Ham United's sole benefit.

Would the LLDC confirm that no public funds have or will contribute to any football mode seating capacity expansion from 54,000 to 60,000.

Please advise when I will finally receive an answer to this question and others presented previously.

Yours sincerely,

Rich Pemberton

foi, London Legacy Development Corporation

Dear Mr Pemberton,

I can confirm that your request for information has been received and a response will be sent to you within 20 working days [12 August 2016].

Your reference for this request is 16066.

Yours sincerely,

Mark Fordham on behalf of Rachael Clauson
FOI/EIR Coordinator
London Legacy Development Corporation
Level 10
1 Stratford Place, Montfichet Road
London
E20 1EJ

Email: [LLDC request email]
Website: www.QueenElizabethOlympicPark.co.uk

Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park is now open. For more information please visit www.QueenElizabethOlympicPark.co.uk

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Dear Mark,

This is not a new question. Please do not treat it as if it is.

Yours sincerely,

Rich Pemberton

Rachael Clauson, London Legacy Development Corporation

I am currently out of the office until 1 August 2016.

 

I will not have access to this mailbox during this period.

 

For enquiries relating to:

 

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) or Environment Information Regulation
(EIR) requests, please redirect your email to:

[LLDC request email]

 

Otherwise I will respond to your email on my return.

 

This communication and the information it contains is intended for the
addressee only. It may be confidential, legally privileged and protected
by law. Unauthorised use, copying or disclosure of any of it may be
unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please contact
me immediately by email or telephone and then delete the e-mail and its
attachments from your system. This email and any attachments have been
scanned for viruses by Symantec and on leaving the London Legacy
Development Corporation they were virus free. No liability will be
incurred for direct, special or indirect or consequential damages arising
from alteration of the contents of this message by a third party or as a
result of any virus contained within it or attached to it. The London
Legacy Development Corporation may monitor traffic data. For enquiries
please call 020 3288 1800.
London Legacy Development Corporation, Level 10, 1 Stratford Place,
Montfichet Road, London, E20 1EJ.

www.queenelizabetholympicpark.co.uk
______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
______________________________________________________________________

foi, London Legacy Development Corporation

1 Atodiad

Dear Mr Pemberton.

Please find attached our response to your information request ref: 16066.

Yours sincerely

Rachael

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir