28 Grasmere Road [20/02911/CONR] - Pre-application Advice
Dear Croydon Borough Council,
The Application Form (item 7) shows that the applicant sought assistance or prior advice from the Council about this application on 29 June 2020.
There is no officer name or reference provided, but the details of the advice received are given as "applicant contact MR Jamar had conversation with Mr Richard Freeman who advised a S73 application to substitute a different site layout"
+++ Please provide copies of all information regarding these pre-application 'discussions', including but not restricted to the proposals submitted by the applicant (Mr Ryan Luffman of Crystal Properties UK Ltd and any advice given by Council officers.
Yours faithfully,
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 '28 Grasmere Road [20/02911/CONR] - Pre-application Advice'.
REDACTION OF ‘PERSONAL DATA’
In June 2019, one of the ‘learning points’ listed by the corporate solicitor as part of another internal review, was the Council ‘should have a clearer redaction policy’. Unfortunately, the Information Team seem not to have got the message, or more likely has chosen to ignore it.
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/d...
In this case, the Council has (again) relied on what has apparently been its ‘custom and practice’, to withhold the names of staff below ‘Head of Service’ level and (again) told us that it considers that this position is consistent with guidance issued by the Information Commissioner. The Council has (again) told us that it considers that this meets the Transparency Code issued by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government.
The Council has not considered the public interest OR the fact that they HAVE provided this type of information previously.
My arguments against this form of ‘blanket redaction’ were set out as part of a similar request in December 2017. As a result, as part of the Council’s internal review, Howard Passman of ‘Legal Services’ advised as follows:
“...The name of one of the officers Louise Tucker, who was the case officer for this application and whose name does appear in the public domain. Her name along with that of the applicant/agent appears within the information published as a matter of routine in the Council’s planning portal, alongside the relevant application documents ....
Therefore, the Council incorrectly applied the exception available under regulations 12(3) and 13 of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004, in redacting her name from the documents provided to you. While this officer is not of Head of Service level, her post is what could be termed public facing, in that due to the nature of her role and as a consequence, her name will enter the public domain as a result the management of the planning application’s under her control. ...”
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/p...
The names 'Mr Jamar', 'Mr Richard Freeman' and are Mr Ryan Luffman are all included on the Application Form and the Council's website shows 'Lucas Zoricak' to be the case officer for the subsequent planning application. The details of any of these individuals should NOT be redacted.
+++ Please now provide COPIES of the information redacted ONLY as required by legislation.
A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/2...
Yours faithfully,
Stephen Whiteside
Dear Mr Whiteside,
Further to your email dated 25 August 2020, in which you requested an
Internal Review of the Council’s response to your request for information,
I have now concluded this review and I am able to reply as follows.
In your request for Internal Review, you asked the Council to reconsider
your request as you believed that you had not been provided with the
information requested.
In your request for information dated 21 July 2020, you requested the
following information:
“The Application Form (item 7) shows that the applicant sought assistance
or prior advice from the Council about this application on 29 June 2020.
There is no officer name or reference provided, but the details of the
advice received are given as "applicant contact MR Jamar had conversation
with Mr Richard Freeman who advised a S73 application to substitute a
different site layout"
+++ Please provide copies of all information regarding these
pre-application 'discussions', including but not restricted to the
proposals submitted by the applicant (Mr Ryan Luffman of Crystal
Properties UK Ltd and any advice given by Council officers.”
The Council responded to you on the 17 August 2020, and provided you with
copies of an emails in respect of an informal discussions with the
applicant. The names and contact details of individuals were redacted,
this was considered to be 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.
In your request for an Internal Review dated, 25 August 2020, you stated
the following:
“In this case, the Council has (again) relied on what has apparently been
its ‘custom and practice’, to withhold the names of staff below ‘Head of
Service’ level and (again) told us that it considers that this position is
consistent with guidance issued by the Information Commissioner. The
Council has (again) told us that it considers that this meets the
Transparency Code issued by the Secretary of State for Communities and
Local Government.
The Council has not considered the public interest OR the fact that they
HAVE provided this type of information previously. My arguments against
this form of ‘blanket redaction’ were set out as part of a similar request
in December 2017. As a result, as part of the Council’s internal review,
Howard Passman of ‘Legal Services’ advised as follows:
“...The name of one of the officers Louise Tucker, who was the case
officer for this application and whose name does appear in the public
domain. Her name along with that of the applicant/agent appears within the
information published as a matter of routine in the Council’s planning
portal, alongside the relevant application documents ....
Therefore, the Council incorrectly applied the exception available under
regulations 12(3) and 13 of the Environmental Information Regulations
2004, in redacting her name from the documents provided to you. While this
officer is not of Head of Service level, her post is what could be termed
public facing, in that due to the nature of her role and as a consequence,
her name will enter the public domain as a result the management of the
planning application’s under her control. ...”
“The names 'Mr Jamar', 'Mr Richard Freeman' and are Mr Ryan Luffman are
all included on the Application Form and the Council's website shows
'Lucas Zoricak' to be the case officer for the subsequent planning
application. The details of any of these individuals should NOT be
redacted.
+++ Please now provide COPIES of the information redacted ONLY as required
by legislation.”
On receiving your request for an Internal Review, I considered the issues
you have raised and the necessity of the redactions made.
I have reviewed the redactions and compared these with the information
that is already within the public domain and in particular the information
already available on the application form which stated “applicant contact
MR Jamar had conversation with Mr Richard Freeman who advised a S73
application to substitute a different site layout.”
I note that the names of those officers involved in the email exchange are
those named in the application form, which is already in the public
domain. I have carefully considered whether the redactions, were
appropriate, in respect of this particular request. While some the
officers do fall outside of those who could be considered to have a public
facing role, given that they have been named within the applications form,
that that in the context of this applications and your request for
information, the redactions were inappropriate. Therefore, please find
attached a revised copy of the emails provided to you with your original
reply.
If you are not content with the outcome of the Internal Review, you have
the right to apply directly to the Information Commissioner for a
decision. The Information Commissioner can be contacted at:
Information Commissioner’s Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire SK9 5AF
Yours sincerely,
Howard Passman
020 8726 6000 ext. 62318
Information Management and Governance Co-ordinator
[1]cid:995D36CC-63D9-452C-921A-47E295D9BC0F
Resources Department
Legal Services
7th Floor Zone C
Bernard Weatherill House
8 Mint Walk
Croydon CR0 1EA
To allow us to deal with the disruption caused by Coronavirus /COVID-19
please communicate with us only by email and not by post. Our lawyers and
support colleagues may be working from different locations. Legal Services
will communicate electronically only. We do not have a fax in our service.
We will accept service of court proceedings for the Council by email on
any business day between the hours of 9am and 4.30pm. Any email received
after 4.30pm will be deemed to be served on us the next business day. The
email address for service is [2][email address]
Council services, online, 24/7 www.croydon.gov.uk/myaccount.
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:[email address]
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