18/00588/FUL - 4 Rectory Park South Croydon CR2 9JL

The request was successful.

Stephen Whiteside

Dear Croydon Borough Council,

Please provide copies of all information regarding consultation on the above planning application and of all comments provided by consultees [statutory or otherwise].

Please ensure that Council's response includes copies of the letters TO those with whom Development Management chose to consult.

Yours faithfully,

Stephen Whiteside

Freedom of Information, Croydon Borough Council

 

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

 

Joanne Welch-Hall

FOI Co-ordinator

Croydon Council

 

Information in relation to the London Borough of Croydon is available
at [1]http://www.croydonobservatory.org/. Also responses to previous
Freedom of Information requests can also be found on the following link

[2]https://croydondata.wordpress.com/ Council services, online, 24/7
www.croydon.gov.uk/myaccount Download our new free My Croydon app for a
faster, smarter and better way to report local issues
www.croydon.gov.uk/app From 1 October 2015, it is a legal requirement for
all privately rented properties in Croydon to be licensed. Landlords
without a licence could face fines of up to £20,000. For more information
and to apply for a licence visit www.croydon.gov.uk/betterplacetorent
Please use this web site address to view the council's e-mail disclaimer -
http://www.croydon.gov.uk/email-disclaimer

References

Visible links
1. http://www.croydonobservatory.org/
2. https://croydondata.wordpress.com/

Stephen Whiteside

Dear Croydon Borough Council,

By law, the Council should normally have responded promptly and by 18 July 2018 at the latest.

Please provide the information requested without further delay and full reasons for the withholding or redaction of any of that information.

Yours faithfully,

Stephen Whiteside

Freedom of Information, Croydon Borough Council

3 Attachments

Dear Mr Whiteside

 

Freedom of Information Request

Please see attached the council's response to your Freedom of Information
request.

Yours sincerely

 

Lynda Fay

FOI Coordinator

Croydon Council

 

Council services, online, 24/7 www.croydon.gov.uk/myaccount.

Please note recycling and waste collections are changing from September
2018 - most households will receive new bins or bags and see their
collection day change. Find out more at www.croydon.gov.uk/recycling.

Please use this web site address to view the council's e-mail disclaimer -
http://www.croydon.gov.uk/email-disclaimer

Stephen Whiteside

Dear Freedom of Information,

18/00588/FUL - 4 Rectory Park South Croydon CR2 9JL

Thank you for the letter dated 20 July 2018.

Unfortunately, as far as I can see, the documents attached to it [ "Commission Viability study 5 7 Heath Road.docx" and "9767 response attachment.pdf"] have NOTHING to do with THIS request.

Please provide copies of the information requested on 19 June 2018, without further undue delay.

Yours sincerely,

Stephen Whiteside

FOI, Croydon Borough Council

3 Attachments

Dear Mr Whiteside

Please find attached our response and the attachments. Please accept our apologies for the error in the previous attachments.

Kind Regards

Information Team

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

[Croydon Borough Council request email]
[email address]

show quoted sections

Stephen Whiteside

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 '18/00588/FUL - 4 Rectory Park South Croydon CR2 9JL'. [Your Ref: EIR/10009767]

INFORMATION PROVIDED REGARDING A DIFFERENT PLANNING APPLICATION ??

I note that pages 1-47 of document “Response attachment.pdf” relate to a different application [16/06472/PRE], which is a Request for Pre-application Planning Advice, dated 20 December 2016.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/4...

I was unaware of this particular application, since the Applicant had not noted it on the application form submitted with the relevant full planning application, 18/00588/FUL.

Comments on the information relating to 16/06472/PRE

The Submission

I note that in this application and in answer to the question “Do you wish the Council to treat pre-application information relating to the advice as confidential?” the applicant indicated “NO”. I therefore see no reason why ANY relevant information within the submission should have been redacted or withheld.

Consultation by Development Management

I note that although ‘standard’ letters [from Pete Smith] were sent to the ‘Transportation Team’, ‘Spatial Planning’ and ‘Tree Team’ on 10 January 2017, observations from ONLY the Tree Team have been provided.

However, I feel sure that in the Council’s letter to the Applicant dated 16 February 2017, the advice under item 2 [Character and appearance] will be based on the ‘specialist’ input of officers within ‘Spatial Planning] and note that under item 5 [Parking and highways] there is specific mention of comment provided by the ‘Strategic Transport Team’.

Similarly, under 6 [Trees and landscaping] there appears to be some ‘specialist’ observations and recommendations about the retention and provision of new planting over and above that which is contained in the documents provided to date. There is also specific mention of an approach to “... Ian Brewster in our Street Trees section ...”, of which there is no sign within the information so far disclosed.

Pre-application Advice Letter – 16 February 2017

The details of the advice provider [the ‘Deputy Team Leader’] have been redacted. I believe that these details WILL already be in the public domain AND that as the author of the Council’s response to this formal request, the Deputy Team Leader should NOT in any case expect their details to be hidden from public scrutiny.

URGENT: I need to know if the Council wants to continue handling THIS request [Ref: EIR/10009767] as one which includes information relating to application 16/06472/PRE, OR would prefer or require a separate request to be submitted under the EIR.

INFORMATION PROVIDED REGARDING CONSULTATION ON 18/00588/FUL

Of the information provided only the document “attachment.pdf” and pages 47-60 of document “Response attachment.pdf” appear to relate to the full planning application that was the subject of my original Request.

“attachment.pdf”

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/4...

This document, apparently authored by an officer in the Council’s ‘Strategic Transport’ and dated 10/04/18, contains the following “...Observations. In order to facilitate the assessment process for the above planning application, Strategic Transport's comments are as follows ...”

The document has been redacted, apparently masking the details of its author and recipient. I do not think this information should be withheld [see below regarding ‘blanket’ redaction etc]. Additionally, I believe that further information may have been omitted, rather than being ‘properly’ redacted. Some sentences for instance, appear to be missing words [ie they are incomplete and do not make sense].

+++ Please check that this document is authentic and ‘complete’ in all respects and provide a copy of same with details of author and recipient NOT redacted and which includes any other information previously unjustifiably redacted.

[I note that this document makes reference to the “Census of Car ownership level”. I am unable to trace copy of this Census, and it would be helpful if a copy could be provided here, as part of this request, or I could be directed to where I could find a downloadable copy online.]

“Response attachment.pdf”

The information provided here indicates that apart from Councillors, ONLY the ‘Transportation Team’ were formally consulted and this does tie in with what is shown under “Comments” on the Council’s website.
+++ Please confirm that only the Transportation Team was consulted on this full planning application, OR provide copies of any information relating to observations requested of and provided by other officers. [eg from ‘Spatial Planning’ or ‘Trees Team’]

I believe that the name which follows “Please ask for/reply to:...” in the letters, would normally be that of the case officer and as such this information should NOT be redacted ... NOR should names/details of the elected Members.
+++ Please provide fresh copies of the correspondence with the Councillors again, with the details of Councillors and case officer clearly visible.

Letter from Pete Smith to Councillor ????? – 7 March 2018

Although this letter includes “ ... Thank you for your recent referral regarding the above application. ...”, the information disclosed to date includes NO referral FROM a Councillor.
+++ Please provide a copy of this Councillor’s referral, with the Councillor’s name/details clearly visible.
+++ Please also provide copies of any OTHER INFORMATION THAT HAS BEEN WITHHELD WITHOUT REASON

REDACTION GENERALLY
-- “Not in the public domain”
You tell me “...We have removed names, emails, contact details and signatures of individuals whose details are not in the public domain, as this may lead to the identification of these individuals and would be disclosing personal data to you.

Withholding personal data as defined by the General Data Protection Regulation 2018, renders such data exempt from disclosure by virtue of Regulation 12(3) of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (“EIR”) read with the provisions of Regulation 13. ...”

NOTE : The details of the applicant [Mr Haris Constanti] and case officer [Robert Naylor] are already in the public domain via the Council’s website. I believe that a significant amount of other information relating to Aventier personnel AND Croydon officers IS already within in the public domain.

+++ Please check whether this exception has been properly applied.
+++ If it the details of Mr Constanti and/or Mr Naylor that have been redacted from any the documents , please provide further copies of those documents with those details CLEARLY shown.

-- “junior staff”
You tell me “... we have also removed the names of officers of the council from this information as it has been the custom and practice for the Council to generally only release the names of staff down to ‘Head of Service’ level, which the Council considers meets the Transparency Code issued by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. Furthermore the council considers that this position is consistent with guidance issued by the Information Commissioner, including a Decision Notice issued in respect of a similar request FS50276863. In regard to these redactions of junior staff, the Council is similarly relying on the provisions of Regulation 12(3) and 13 of the EIR. ...”

The Council's continuing ‘blanket approach’ to redaction
As I understand it, Regulation 12(3) and 13 CAN have the effect of prohibiting the Council from disclosing third party personal data, but ONLY if this would breach the Data Protection Act.

Regulation 12(2) establishes a presumption in favour of disclosure. If the Council has established that an exception is engaged, it is THEN necessary to weigh the competing public interests, per regulation 12(1)(b). That is, the public interest in disclosing the information as weighed against the public interest in maintaining the exception.

I believe that the Council has neither shown WHY an exception is engaged in THIS case, nor carried out the Public Interest [PI] test as required by the legislation.

It is also pertinent to note that DN relied upon, was issued in respect of a request made and handled under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 [FOIA]. The Response of 20 June makes clear however, that THIS request has rightly been considered under the provisions of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 [EIR] and the ‘presumption in favour of disclosure’ should therefore apply.

- Decision Notice - ICO Case Reference FS50276863
I do not believe that the ICO Decision Notice [DN] referred to [FS50276863] DOES relate to a ‘similar request’. I also note that, according to the ICO website that the Decision Notice “...is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal....”

Paragraph 5 of the Decision Notice [DN] on which the Council relies, confirms that initially the FSA claimed that its policy was “… not … to disclose details of staff below Head of Department level.” Paragraph 13 however, explains that “During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation …The FSA agreed to disclose the names of its employees who worked at the level of manager …. The FSA accepted the Commissioner’s preliminary view that such senior individuals within the organisation had a high level of accountability and responsibility which warranted the disclosure of their names”.

The ICO therefore does NOT adopt the simplified approach suggested by Croydon. Instead, the DN illustrates that for a request - which is not a routine matter for which a ‘formula’ is the only practical approach - ALL 3 fairness tests - or factors* - that the ICO has described need to be applied (see also the supplementary factors at paragraph 48). Their application must have specific regard to the situation.

The three factors ICO considers in judging fairness in disclosure:
1. the individual’s reasonable expectations of what would happen to their information;
2. the consequences of disclosure (if it would cause any unnecessary or unjustified damage or distress to the individual concerned); and
3. the balance between the rights and freedoms of the data subject and the legitimate interests of the public.
The supplementary factors that should be considered:
4. the seniority of the role
5. whether the role is public facing
6. whether the position involves a significant level of personal judgement and individual responsibility.
‘Seniority’ is therefore only ONE factor and the Council has NOT demonstrated the weighing of ALL the ‘factors’ set out by the ICO in guidance.

- Local Government Transparency Code 2015 [DCLG]
Although the Code appears to deal essentially with pre-defined datasets and a routine publishing scheme, paragraph 6 helpfully explains “This Code ensures local people can now see ... how decisions are taken and who is taking them …”.

Paragraph 15 confirms that "….The Data Protection Act 1998 does not restrict or inhibit information being published about councillors or senior local authority officers because of the legitimate public interest in the scrutiny of such senior individuals and decision makers…".

As set out above, the DN relied upon explicitly demonstrates that the Code level of seniority was NOT accepted by the ICO as a sufficient basis for determining disclosure. That is because the decision-making powers/public facing nature etc of officers’ roles and public interest must all be weighed up.

Paragraph 22 of the Code also usefully clarifies that “… Where information would otherwise fall within one of the exemptions from disclosure, for instance, under … the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 … Local authorities should start from the PRESUMPTION OF OPENNESS AND DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION [my emphasis], and not rely on exemptions to withhold information unless absolutely necessary.”

- Officers of the Council
Although I understand why those senior employees in scope for the Code are most likely to ‘tick the box’ against the three factors (esp. 1 and 3) much (if not all) of the time, that does NOT automatically 'eliminate' everyone else. It must depend on their role and the specific circumstances... and how the relevant ‘factors’ apply to those.

I believe that there may well be circumstances [like here] where it IS entirely appropriate to release the details of more junior officers, particularly [but not only] when those details are already in the public domain. As the ICO makes clear, “… there is a public interest in fully understanding the reasons for public authorities’ decisions, to remove any suspicion of manipulating the facts, or ‘spin’. For example, this may well be a public interest argument for disclosing advice given to decision makers. …”

There is a legitimate interest in public disclosure of the details of officers (usually ‘professionals’) who are employed by the authority to provide ‘specialist’ advice on particular aspects of a planning application, since this helps inform a case officer’s recommendation and thereby influence the ultimate decision. Such disclosures will therefore have the wider benefit of increasing public confidence in the reliability of the Council’s consultation and decision-making processes.

The information provided as part of other similar requests, clearly illustrates the significant reliance of the case officer on the specialist advice provided by the Council’s ‘Spatial Planning’, Trees’ and ‘Transportation’ teams, with their observations being repeated, often verbatim, within Mr Naylor’s response.
[ See my request “34 Arkwright Road [18/00749/FUL] - Pre-application advice”. Your Ref: F/CRT/10009165 ICO Ref: FER0754718 ]

+++ I believe the Council’s approach amounts to a form of “blanket redaction” and I do not agree that this position “…is consistent with guidance issued by the Information Commissioner …” and/or the “ Decision Notice issued in respect of … FS50276863]…”. Indeed, I believe that both ICO guidance AND elements of the Notice strongly suggest that the Council should reconsider its position with regard to redaction of ‘personal data’ in this case and more generally.

+++ THIS request is being considered under the EIR and the ‘presumption in favour of disclosure’ should be applied. I believe the onus is [still] on the Council to clearly demonstrate WHY, in THIS case, it would be unfair to disclose the redacted information. If, for any piece of that information, they cannot so demonstrate, then the information should be disclosed.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/1...

Yours faithfully,

Stephen Whiteside

Thoday, Nicola, Croydon Borough Council

Dear Mr Whiteside

Thank you for your request for an internal review.

I will be considering the matter, making enquires and revert to you further in due course.

If you have any queries in the meantime, please contact me.

Yours sincerely

Mrs Thoday
Corporate Solicitor
Legal and Democratic Services
London Borough of Croydon
Bernard Weatherill House
Croydon
CR0 1EA

Telephone: 0208 726 6000 ext: 88174

Council services, online, 24/7 www.croydon.gov.uk/myaccount.

Please note recycling and waste collections are changing from September 2018 - most households will receive new bins or bags and see their collection day change. Find out more at www.croydon.gov.uk/recycling.

Please use this web site address to view the council's e-mail disclaimer - http://www.croydon.gov.uk/email-disclaimer

Stockton, Jessica, Croydon Borough Council

1 Attachment

Dear Sir,

 

I acknowledge receipt of your request for an internal review dated 29 July
regarding FOI 9767 which has been referred to me to undertake under the
provisions of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (“EIR”) .I
will be requesting information from the relevant department to enable me
to consider your internal review request.

 

Under EIR, the information commissioners’ office recommends that a
response be provided within 40 working days following receipt of the
request for a review and as such you should receive a response to your
internal review request by no later than 24 September 2018.

 

In relation to your specific requests regarding 16/06472/PRE, please
submit any queries you have as a new request for information. In relation
to your request for the “Census of Car Ownership Level”, please similarly
send your request for this information as a separate request. I have
highlighted those requests below for ease of reference.

 

 

Yours Sincerely

 

 

 

Jessica Stockton

Corporate Solicitor

Legal Services
Resources Department
7th Flr , Zone C

Bernard Weatherill House

8 Mint Walk

CR0 1EA

 

[1]cid:995D36CC-63D9-452C-921A-47E295D9BC0F

 

 

 

show quoted sections

Stockton, Jessica, Croydon Borough Council

1 Attachment

Dear Sir,

 

I refer to my acknowledgement of  2 August 2018 of your request for an
internal review which was dated 29 July 2018 made under the Environmental
Information Regulation 2004 (EIR) relating to case reference F/CRT/9767.

As you aware, on 03 September 2018 the Council, in response to your
request for information under the EIR (F/CRT/10009739) made your request
manifestly unreasonable pursuant to Regulation 12 (4) (b) EIR and informed
you that the Council “will no longer be responding to EIR and Internal
Review requests in relation to this case, internal reviews or further
requests which are in some way attributed to your ongoing grievance in
respect of pre planning and planning applications”.

 

In view of the decision of 03 September 2018, we are unable to process
this request for internal review (F/CRT/9767) as it pertains to pre
planning and planning application particularly with regards to the
developer Aventier.

 

If you are not content with this decision, you have the right to apply
directly to the Information Commissioner for a decision. The Information
Commissioner can be contacted at:

 

Information Commissioner’s Office

Wycliffe House

Water Lane

Wilmslow

Cheshire, SK9 5AF

 

Yours sincerely  

 

 

 

 

 

Jessica Stockton

Corporate Solicitor

Legal Services
Resources Department
7th Flr , Zone C

Bernard Weatherill House

8 Mint Walk

CR0 1EA

 

[1]cid:995D36CC-63D9-452C-921A-47E295D9BC0F

 

From: Stockton, Jessica
Sent: 02 August 2018 11:09
To: 'Stephen Whiteside' <[FOI #492055 email]>
Subject: RE: Internal review of Freedom of Information request -
18/00588/FUL - 4 Rectory Park South Croydon CR2 9JL

 

Dear Sir,

 

I acknowledge receipt of your request for an internal review dated 29 July
regarding FOI 9767 which has been referred to me to undertake under the
provisions of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (“EIR”) .I
will be requesting information from the relevant department to enable me
to consider your internal review request.

 

Under EIR, the information commissioners’ office recommends that a
response be provided within 40 working days following receipt of the
request for a review and as such you should receive a response to your
internal review request by no later than 24 September 2018.

 

In relation to your specific requests regarding 16/06472/PRE, please
submit any queries you have as a new request for information. In relation
to your request for the “Census of Car Ownership Level”, please similarly
send your request for this information as a separate request. I have
highlighted those requests below for ease of reference.

 

 

Yours Sincerely

 

 

 

Jessica Stockton

Corporate Solicitor

Legal Services
Resources Department
7th Flr , Zone C

Bernard Weatherill House

8 Mint Walk

CR0 1EA

 

[2]cid:995D36CC-63D9-452C-921A-47E295D9BC0F

 

 

 

show quoted sections

Derby, James, Croydon Borough Council

5 Attachments

Dear Mr Whiteside

I am writing regarding your email below; I note you were provided a response on 6th September 2018.

Following exchange of correspondence with the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) on this matter; the Council has re-considered the redactions in the documents disclosed to you in the response of 23 July 2018; it notes that the redactions relates to names and official email addresses of 2 "senior" officers of the Council with public facing roles. Based on relevant ICO Decision Notices and Guidance Notes the Council is now of the view that the names of the "senior" officers and their official email addresses can be disclosed as they are in a public facing role and therefore wishes to withdraw it's relaiance on the exception in Regulation 13 of the EIR in this matter.

Accordingly, kindly find attached, information relating to the full planning application submitted to the Council by Aventier with Ref No: 18/00588/FUL which is held by the Council.

Further, as you are aware, information relating to full planning applications submitted to the Council are also available on the Council's planning portal and it is easily accessible to you on the Council's website at https://publicaccess3.croydon.gov.uk/onl.... The Council therefore submits that on this basis, Regulation 6 (1) b) EIR is engaged. (SEE ICO DECISION NOTICE - FER0676534 – 11 December 2017 - Wokingham Borough Council).

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

show quoted sections

Stephen Whiteside

Dear Mr Derby,

Given the Council's recent (reconsidered) decisions on very similar requests, I find your position on this utterly ridiculous.

Could you please confirm the following:
1. that the Council no longer relies on Regulation 12 (4) (b) with regard to THIS request,
2. that your email (with attachments) of 6 June 2019 represents the outcome of the internal review requested on 29 July 2018, and that
3. if I am not content with your latest, unreasonably delayed offering (which I am obviously not), I must AGAIN apply directly to the Information Commissioner for a decision.

Yours sincerely,

Stephen Whiteside

Derby, James, Croydon Borough Council

Dear Mr Whiteside

The Council has made its position on the issues you raised below known to the ICO and they will be in touch with you accordingly.

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

show quoted sections

Stephen Whiteside left an annotation ()

For those following, the Information Commissioner is currently investigating the Council's handling of this request. (ICO Ref: FER0811393)

Other than the observations made by Transportation (10/04/18), I have still to receive the requested information, which SHOULD include all the observations (objections) made by the public as well as any comments submitted by the other consultees, including the local councillors..

FOI, Croydon Borough Council

1 Attachment

  • Attachment

    9767 DOCS DISCLOSED.zip

    15.0M Download

Dear Mr Whiteside,

Please find documents requested.

Kind regards,

Steven Borg
Information Coordinator
Croydon Council

Digital Council of the Year

Information Management Team
Law & Governance Division
Resources Department
7th Floor, Zone C
Bernard Wetherill House,
Mint Walk, Croydon,
CR0 1EA

show quoted sections

Dear Mr Borg

Your Ref: F/CRT/10009767 (18/00588/FUL - 4 Rectory Park South Croydon CR2 9JL)

Thank you for your email (with attachment) dated 27 September 2019.

Unfortunately, other than the observations made by Transportation (10/04/18), you have STILL not provided the requested information, which SHOULD include all the comments (for and against) made by the public as well as any observations submitted by the other consultees, including the local councillors.

What you HAVE provided however are further copies of the information regarding the pre-application submission/advice, which the Council has disclosed in response to a different information request, to which the Council gave the reference F/CRT/10010271. (This information is IRRELEVANT to THIS request).

My initial request for this information was made 15 months ago! Moreover, the Information Commissioner's Decision Notice (FER0811393) dated 4 September 2019 gave the Council 35 calendar days to FINALLY provide a proper response. I would therefore be grateful if you could ensure that the Council now abides by the Commissioner's decision and provides copies of ALL the requested information without further undue delay.

Yours sincerely,

Stephen Whiteside

FOI, Croydon Borough Council

1 Attachment

  • Attachment

    9767 Disclosed Sep2019 Part2.zip

    5.8M Download

Dear Mr Whiteside,

Apologies thanks for letting me know it did not send. See attached Part 2 which did not attach on Friday including comments and obs etc. Along with the first folder, this is all that is held.

Kind regards,

Steven Borg
Information Coordinator
Croydon Council

Digital Council of the Year

Information Management Team
Law & Governance Division
Resources Department
7th Floor, Zone C
Bernard Wetherill House,
Mint Walk, Croydon,
CR0 1EA

show quoted sections