Dear Ian Feber,

Re: Environmental Information Regulations Request MPGCU03SZ 

I refer to your request to the council received on 07/08/2024 for the
following:

Dear Leeds City Council, In connection with the Hough Top Court Planning
Application: 23/06663/FU, various documents and reports in the planning
portal were revised as a result of multiple discussions and communications
between the Applicant and various Council departments. For example,
specific advice given by Highways, Design, Planning, Finance and other
Departments involved is not included within the uploaded documents - yet
the existence of such advice, meetings and consultations is referred to or
summarised several times in Planning Officers reports. As the applicant is
Leeds City Council's own Council Housing Growth Team, we believe such
information should also have been made publicly available. Therefore,
under the Freedom of Information Act, I request the following information:
Information held by Leeds City Council relating to planning application
number 23/06663/FU. My request specifically includes all and any
communications to, from and between the applicant (Council Housing Growth
Team and their Agents) and any internal LCC department, including the
Planning Department, Highways, LCC Design Team, LCC Landscape Team, LCC
Nature Conservation Team, Finance, Political Groups, Corporate Governance
etc. It should include text of emails, agendas, summaries or minutes of
meetings, any written discussions and responses or other communications
about the application (and proposed or actioned changes to it or
documents). My request excludes plans, drawings, reports etc. that are or
have been available for public viewing on the public access hub, and
public comments received about the application. It also excludes
information already supplied under previous Freedom of Information
requests via this site. The requested timescale is 6th January 2024 to 6th
August 2024. I would like you to provide this information in an electronic
format, such as .pdf or access via a portal or internet link. Please do
not hesitate to contact me should any aspect of my request require
clarification. Yours faithfully, Ian Feber

We will respond to your request in accordance with the Environmental
Information Regulations 2004, within 20 working days, from the day after
your request was received. We will therefore aim to respond to your
request by 04/09/2024.

For reference, Leeds City Council publish a wealth of information which
you can access at: Welcome to LEEDS.GOV.UK - Leeds City Council  and Data
Mill North – Open Data for the North of England .

If your request for information is considered and deemed as a 'business as
usual' request, it will be responded to by the appropriate Service within
the Council.

If you have questions about this request, please contact us at
[Leeds City Council request email].

Yours sincerely,

Dior

Information Management and Governance,
Integrated Digital Services

Dear Ian Feber,

Re: Environmental Information Regulations Request MPGCU03SZ. 

I refer to your correspondence to the council and your request for the
following:

Information held by Leeds City Council relating to planning application
number 23/06663/FU. My request specifically includes all and any
communications to, from and between the applicant (Council Housing Growth
Team and their Agents) and any internal LCC department, including the
Planning Department, Highways, LCC Design Team, LCC Landscape Team, LCC
Nature Conservation Team, Finance, Political Groups, Corporate Governance
etc.

It should include text of emails, agendas, summaries or minutes of
meetings, any written discussions and responses or other communications
about the application (and proposed or actioned changes to it or
documents).

My request excludes plans, drawings, reports etc. that are or have been
available for public viewing on the public access hub, and public comments
received about the application. It also excludes information already
supplied under previous Freedom of Information requests via this site.

The requested timescale is 6th January 2024 to 6th August 2024.

I would like you to provide this information in an electronic format, such
as .pdf or access via a portal or internet link.

Please see attached.

With specific regard to the disclosure of the source and identity of the
information provided, the Council considers that this should be excepted
from release under Regulation 12(3) & 13 of the Environmental Information
Regulations, on the basis that it constitutes the personal information of
a third party, and disclosure to a member of the public would contravene
the first data protection DPA 2018 principle (namely that personal data
must be processed lawfully, fairly and in a transparent manner in relation
to individuals.

I trust that this response is satisfactory. Under Regulation 11, however,
you are entitled to make representations to us if it appears that we have
failed to comply with a requirement of the Regulations in relation to your
request. Representations must be made to us no later than 40 working days
after the date you believe we failed to comply with such a requirement. 

We will then consider your representations and supporting evidence and
decide if we have complied, notifying you of our decision as soon as
possible, and no later than 40 working days after the date of receipt of
your representations. 

Under Regulation 18, you are then entitled to apply to the Information
Commissioner for a decision as to whether, in any specified respect, your
request has not been dealt with in accordance with parts 2 and 3 of the
Regulations. 

Should you wish to contact the Commissioner’s Office then you can contact
the Commissioner via their website at [1]www.ico.gov.uk

I trust that this is self-explanatory.  If you have any queries please
contact me on 0113 3784251, or by return email to [Leeds City Council
request email].

Yours sincerely  

Anthony Seaward

Information Governance Officer

Legal, Democratic and Information Governance

Leeds City Council

References

Visible links
1. http://www.ico.gov.uk/

Dear Ian Feber,

Re: Internal Review MPGCU03SZ

Thank you for your correspondence. I am sorry you are unhappy with the
information provided in our response to your request.

Your request has been logged as an Internal Review and an independent
reviewing officer unconnected with the original request will review the
decision and respond to you within 40 working days. 

In addition, you have a right, to ask the Office of the Information
Commissioner to assess your case. The Information Commissioner can be
contacted via the website at www.ico.org.uk .

Please remember to quote reference MPGCU03SZ in any future communications.

I trust that you will find the above information self-explanatory,
however, should you have any queries or wish to discuss this matter then
please contact us at [Leeds City Council request email].

Yours sincerely, 

Dior

Information Management and Governance.

Dear Mr Ferber,

I have been assigned as one of the managers in the Information Governance Service to complete an internal review of your below request.

I note your concern regarding the lack of correspondence between the applicant and internal LCC departments.

In reviewing our response, I can see that we have disclosed to you correspondence between the following council services; housing growth team, strategic planning, engineering, transport planning, climate, energy and green Spaces, and planning – acoustics. Are you able to provide more specific information as to which teams you would consider may hold information that has not been provided in our response to you?

Kind regards,

Olivia Knight
Principal Information Governance Officer
Information Management & Governance
Legal, Democratic & Information Governance
Leeds City Council

Please note I do not work Tuesdays

show quoted sections

Dear Ian Feber,

I refer to your request for an internal review on your recent
Environmental Information Regulations request MPGCU03SZ. I would like to
thank you for bringing this matter to our attention and I am sorry you
were not satisfied with our previous response.

I have investigated your concerns and now provide the following at stage 2
of the council’s complaints process:

Your original request asked for the following information: 

In connection with the Hough Top Court Planning Application: 23/06663/FU,
various documents and reports in the planning portal were revised as a
result of multiple discussions and communications between the Applicant
and various Council departments.

For example, specific advice given by Highways, Design, Planning, Finance
and other Departments involved is not included within the uploaded
documents - yet the existence of such advice, meetings and consultations
is referred to or summarised several times in Planning Officers reports.

As the applicant is Leeds City Council's own Council Housing Growth Team,
we believe such information should also have been made publicly available.
Therefore, under the Freedom of Information Act, I request the following
information:

Information held by Leeds City Council relating to planning application
number 23/06663/FU. My request specifically includes all and any
communications to, from and between the applicant (Council Housing Growth
Team and their Agents) and any internal LCC department, including the
Planning Department, Highways, LCC Design Team, LCC Landscape Team, LCC
Nature Conservation Team, Finance, Political Groups, Corporate Governance
etc.

It should include text of emails, agendas, summaries or minutes of
meetings, any written discussions and responses or other communications
about the application (and proposed or actioned changes to it or
documents).

My request excludes plans, drawings, reports etc. that are or have been
available for public viewing on the public access hub, and public comments
received about the application. It also excludes information already
supplied under previous Freedom of Information requests via this site.

The requested timescale is 6th January 2024 to 6th August 2024.

In response to your request the council disclosed 64 pages of records it
considered to be in scope of your request. Following this disclosure you
advised that you considered records to be missing, in particular records
of internal communications, including correspondence, notes of meetings,
and documents shared about this matter. You also provided further
clarification regarding information specifically that you considered was
missing from the disclosure. I will address each of these points below
having requested a response from the relevant service area on this
matter. 

What is specifically missing are any discussions between the applicant
(Council Housing Growth Team and their Agents), the Planning Department
and LCC Design Team about the design issues.

For example:

1) At the 7th March panel, John Stonard said:   “So, yes, the situation is
I'm unable to support this scheme on the design. The NPPF requires that
schemes that are not good design should be refused. I do not believe this
is a good design.”

The service have advised that this comment was based on the NPPF which is
a national policy, rather than any specific internal discussion.
[1]National Planning Policy Framework - GOV.UK 

2) Most of the 100 plus objections specifically mentioned the poor design,
layout, and poor materials choice, and Panel and the Planning Department
also shared reservations .

I note that your original request advised that you did not wish to receive
public comments in response to the design and these were therefore not
provided to you. There are no records of internal discussions about these
objections held by the council. 

3)  And in CHGT's 18th April response to that feedback, they mention many
times that various discussions have been held about the design, layout and
materials. Examples include: "To further improve the differentiation
between surfacing materials around the apartments we have also addressed
the statutory design consultee’s comments..."  "We have taken on board...
statutory design consultee comments regarding the apartment elevations." 
 "In addition, we have explored the possibility of transitioning the brick
material through the site. However, after consultation, the statutory
design consultee does not believe this is necessary and they will not
support the use of artificial stone."

Consultee comments, such as the statutory design ones referred to above,
are not internal communications and rather their comments are all
available on the Public Access site for this planning matter. 

Given the above, would you not expect there to also be several unpublished
documents or reports containing initial comments from the Design team;
some emails back and forth between parties discussing; probably further
suggestions and rejections; before arriving at an agreement?  Would there
not be financial information about the costs of stone Vs brick?  Detail of
the ball strike fencing costs?

I am advised that no further records are held in respect of this matter.
This includes not just email correspondence but also minutes of meetings
or documents shared. 

However in reviewing your original request I am of the view that
information may not have been shared with you in response to this request
as it was considered to be out of scope due to the following point of your
original request; 

'It also excludes information already supplied under previous Freedom of
Information requests via this site.' 

Whilst a significant amount of information has been provided in response
to other Freedom of Information requests regarding Hough Top Court
Planning Application: 23/06663/FU, I do not believe this was disclosed
through [2]www.whatdotheyknow.com. As such attached to this response is
information which has previously been disclosed in response to a different
FOI request. Some of this may duplicate the information you have already
received, and some may also be out of scope of your original request due
to the date range and specifics of your request, however this covers the
entirety of the information held by the council on this matter, aside from
information on the public access site. Please note, due to its size, this
will be sent in 5 parts. The first part is attached to this response.

In providing this, please note that personal information has been redacted
in accordance with Reg 12(3) of the Environmental Information Regulations,
as its release would breach the first data protection principle of the UK
GDPR (fair and lawful processing).

In addition, a small amount of correspondence has been redacted under Reg
12(5)(b) of the EIR on the basis that it is covered by Legal Professional
Privilege. This is because it constitutes professional legal advice
between the Council’s legal service and our Planning Service in respect of
the application, and the disclosure of this would (as defined by the EIR)
‘adversely affect the course of justice’. In this regard, the Information
Commissioner’s Office recognises that it is fundamental to the English
legal system that a client can speak freely and frankly with their legal
adviser to obtain legal advice based on full knowledge of all the relevant
circumstances of the case.

When considering any exception under the Regulations, the public interest
test must, of course, be considered. In addition, I am aware that, under
Reg 12(1), there is a presumption in favour of disclosure in this regard.
In considering this matter, however, I am not of the view that there is
(outside of a general argument in favour of transparency) a public
interest in the disclosure of this correspondence which is of a very
technical nature. Conversely, there is a very firm public interest in
maintaining the concept of Legal Professional Privilege. The Upper
Tribunal for Information Rights has, for example, previously accepted the
submission that the risk of the disclosure of legally privileged
information, leading to a weakening of confidence in the general principle
of LPP, was a public interest factor of “very considerable weight” in
favour of maintaining the exception. It also added that there would have
to be “special or unusual factors” in a particular case to justify not
giving it this weight, and I am not of the view that such factors exist
here. Given the above, I am of the view that the overwhelming public
interest lies in the maintenance of this exception.

A small amount of information has also been redacted in accordance with
Reg 12(5)(e) of the Regulations. This states that information can be
considered exempt if it ‘involves the disclosure of internal
communications’, such as those between Council Officers (although, as can
be seen by the amount of information disclosed, the Council has only
applied this exception in limitation). With respect to the public interest
test for this exception, whilst I, again, accept that there is a general
public interest argument in favour of transparency, there is also a clear
public interest in public authorities having the space to exchange views
and ‘think’ in private as this maintains the ability for officers to have
a free and frank exchange of views before a particular matter is resolved.
Given that there is already a considerable amount of information
concerning this planning application in the public domain, and that it
will also be determined at a public plans panel, I am not of the view that
the exception of this correspondence limits public participation in
environmental decision making.

This concludes my response to your appeal. If you remain dissatisfied with
the response of the council under Regulation 18, you are entitled to apply
to the Information Commissioner for a decision as to whether, in any
specified respect, your request has not been dealt with in accordance with
parts 2 and 3 of the Regulations.

Should you wish to contact the Commissioner’s Office then you can via
their website at [3]www.ico.org.uk.

Yours sincerely, 

Olivia Knight 

Principal Information Governance Officer 

Leeds City Council 

══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

The information in this email (and any attachment) may be for the intended
recipient only. If you know you are not the intended recipient, please do
not use or disclose the information in any way and please delete this
email (and any attachment) from your system.

The Council does not accept service of legal documents by e-mail.

Legal notice: Leeds City Council contracts on the basis of a formal
letter, contract or order form. An e-mail from Leeds City Council will not
create a contract unless it clearly and expressly states otherwise. For
further information please refer to:
[4]https://www.leeds.gov.uk/councillors-and...

References

Visible links
1. https://www.gov.uk/government/publicatio...
2. http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/
3. http://www.ico.org.uk/
4. https://www.leeds.gov.uk/councillors-and...

Part 2

Olivia Knight

Principal Information Governance Officer

Information Management & Governance

Legal, Democratic & Information Governance

Leeds City Council

0113 37 84259

Please note I do not work Tuesdays

From: DPFOI
Sent: Friday, November 8, 2024 4:05 PM
To: Ian Feber <[FOI #1155813 email]>
Subject: MPGCU03SZ - Internal Review response

Dear Ian Feber,

I refer to your request for an internal review on your recent
Environmental Information Regulations request MPGCU03SZ. I would like to
thank you for bringing this matter to our attention and I am sorry you
were not satisfied with our previous response.

I have investigated your concerns and now provide the following at stage 2
of the council’s complaints process:

Your original request asked for the following information: 

In connection with the Hough Top Court Planning Application: 23/06663/FU,
various documents and reports in the planning portal were revised as a
result of multiple discussions and communications between the Applicant
and various Council departments.

For example, specific advice given by Highways, Design, Planning, Finance
and other Departments involved is not included within the uploaded
documents - yet the existence of such advice, meetings and consultations
is referred to or summarised several times in Planning Officers reports.

As the applicant is Leeds City Council's own Council Housing Growth Team,
we believe such information should also have been made publicly available.
Therefore, under the Freedom of Information Act, I request the following
information:

Information held by Leeds City Council relating to planning application
number 23/06663/FU. My request specifically includes all and any
communications to, from and between the applicant (Council Housing Growth
Team and their Agents) and any internal LCC department, including the
Planning Department, Highways, LCC Design Team, LCC Landscape Team, LCC
Nature Conservation Team, Finance, Political Groups, Corporate Governance
etc.

It should include text of emails, agendas, summaries or minutes of
meetings, any written discussions and responses or other communications
about the application (and proposed or actioned changes to it or
documents).

My request excludes plans, drawings, reports etc. that are or have been
available for public viewing on the public access hub, and public comments
received about the application. It also excludes information already
supplied under previous Freedom of Information requests via this site.

The requested timescale is 6th January 2024 to 6th August 2024.

In response to your request the council disclosed 64 pages of records it
considered to be in scope of your request. Following this disclosure you
advised that you considered records to be missing, in particular records
of internal communications, including correspondence, notes of meetings,
and documents shared about this matter. You also provided further
clarification regarding information specifically that you considered was
missing from the disclosure. I will address each of these points below
having requested a response from the relevant service area on this
matter. 

What is specifically missing are any discussions between the applicant
(Council Housing Growth Team and their Agents), the Planning Department
and LCC Design Team about the design issues.

For example:

1) At the 7th March panel, John Stonard said:   “So, yes, the situation is
I'm unable to support this scheme on the design. The NPPF requires that
schemes that are not good design should be refused. I do not believe this
is a good design.”

The service have advised that this comment was based on the NPPF which is
a national policy, rather than any specific internal discussion.
[1]National Planning Policy Framework - GOV.UK 

2) Most of the 100 plus objections specifically mentioned the poor design,
layout, and poor materials choice, and Panel and the Planning Department
also shared reservations .

I note that your original request advised that you did not wish to receive
public comments in response to the design and these were therefore not
provided to you. There are no records of internal discussions about these
objections held by the council. 

3)  And in CHGT's 18th April response to that feedback, they mention many
times that various discussions have been held about the design, layout and
materials. Examples include: "To further improve the differentiation
between surfacing materials around the apartments we have also addressed
the statutory design consultee’s comments..."  "We have taken on board...
statutory design consultee comments regarding the apartment elevations." 
 "In addition, we have explored the possibility of transitioning the brick
material through the site. However, after consultation, the statutory
design consultee does not believe this is necessary and they will not
support the use of artificial stone."

Consultee comments, such as the statutory design ones referred to above,
are not internal communications and rather their comments are all
available on the Public Access site for this planning matter. 

Given the above, would you not expect there to also be several unpublished
documents or reports containing initial comments from the Design team;
some emails back and forth between parties discussing; probably further
suggestions and rejections; before arriving at an agreement?  Would there
not be financial information about the costs of stone Vs brick?  Detail of
the ball strike fencing costs?

I am advised that no further records are held in respect of this matter.
This includes not just email correspondence but also minutes of meetings
or documents shared. 

However in reviewing your original request I am of the view that
information may not have been shared with you in response to this request
as it was considered to be out of scope due to the following point of your
original request; 

'It also excludes information already supplied under previous Freedom of
Information requests via this site.' 

Whilst a significant amount of information has been provided in response
to other Freedom of Information requests regarding Hough Top Court
Planning Application: 23/06663/FU, I do not believe this was disclosed
through [2]www.whatdotheyknow.com. As such attached to this response is
information which has previously been disclosed in response to a different
FOI request. Some of this may duplicate the information you have already
received, and some may also be out of scope of your original request due
to the date range and specifics of your request, however this covers the
entirety of the information held by the council on this matter, aside from
information on the public access site. Please note, due to its size, this
will be sent in 5 parts. The first part is attached to this response.

In providing this, please note that personal information has been redacted
in accordance with Reg 12(3) of the Environmental Information Regulations,
as its release would breach the first data protection principle of the UK
GDPR (fair and lawful processing).

In addition, a small amount of correspondence has been redacted under Reg
12(5)(b) of the EIR on the basis that it is covered by Legal Professional
Privilege. This is because it constitutes professional legal advice
between the Council’s legal service and our Planning Service in respect of
the application, and the disclosure of this would (as defined by the EIR)
‘adversely affect the course of justice’. In this regard, the Information
Commissioner’s Office recognises that it is fundamental to the English
legal system that a client can speak freely and frankly with their legal
adviser to obtain legal advice based on full knowledge of all the relevant
circumstances of the case.

When considering any exception under the Regulations, the public interest
test must, of course, be considered. In addition, I am aware that, under
Reg 12(1), there is a presumption in favour of disclosure in this regard.
In considering this matter, however, I am not of the view that there is
(outside of a general argument in favour of transparency) a public
interest in the disclosure of this correspondence which is of a very
technical nature. Conversely, there is a very firm public interest in
maintaining the concept of Legal Professional Privilege. The Upper
Tribunal for Information Rights has, for example, previously accepted the
submission that the risk of the disclosure of legally privileged
information, leading to a weakening of confidence in the general principle
of LPP, was a public interest factor of “very considerable weight” in
favour of maintaining the exception. It also added that there would have
to be “special or unusual factors” in a particular case to justify not
giving it this weight, and I am not of the view that such factors exist
here. Given the above, I am of the view that the overwhelming public
interest lies in the maintenance of this exception.

A small amount of information has also been redacted in accordance with
Reg 12(5)(e) of the Regulations. This states that information can be
considered exempt if it ‘involves the disclosure of internal
communications’, such as those between Council Officers (although, as can
be seen by the amount of information disclosed, the Council has only
applied this exception in limitation). With respect to the public interest
test for this exception, whilst I, again, accept that there is a general
public interest argument in favour of transparency, there is also a clear
public interest in public authorities having the space to exchange views
and ‘think’ in private as this maintains the ability for officers to have
a free and frank exchange of views before a particular matter is resolved.
Given that there is already a considerable amount of information
concerning this planning application in the public domain, and that it
will also be determined at a public plans panel, I am not of the view that
the exception of this correspondence limits public participation in
environmental decision making.

This concludes my response to your appeal. If you remain dissatisfied with
the response of the council under Regulation 18, you are entitled to apply
to the Information Commissioner for a decision as to whether, in any
specified respect, your request has not been dealt with in accordance with
parts 2 and 3 of the Regulations.

Should you wish to contact the Commissioner’s Office then you can via
their website at [3]www.ico.org.uk.

Yours sincerely, 

Olivia Knight 

Principal Information Governance Officer 

Leeds City Council 

══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

The information in this email (and any attachment) may be for the intended
recipient only. If you know you are not the intended recipient, please do
not use or disclose the information in any way and please delete this
email (and any attachment) from your system.

The Council does not accept service of legal documents by e-mail.

Legal notice: Leeds City Council contracts on the basis of a formal
letter, contract or order form. An e-mail from Leeds City Council will not
create a contract unless it clearly and expressly states otherwise. For
further information please refer to:
[4]https://www.leeds.gov.uk/councillors-and...

References

Visible links
1. https://www.gov.uk/government/publicatio...
2. http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/
3. http://www.ico.org.uk/
4. https://www.leeds.gov.uk/councillors-and...

Part 3

Olivia Knight

Principal Information Governance Officer

Information Management & Governance

Legal, Democratic & Information Governance

Leeds City Council

Please note I do not work Tuesdays

From: DPFOI
Sent: Friday, November 8, 2024 4:05 PM
To: Ian Feber <[FOI #1155813 email]>
Subject: MPGCU03SZ - Internal Review response

Dear Ian Feber,

I refer to your request for an internal review on your recent
Environmental Information Regulations request MPGCU03SZ. I would like to
thank you for bringing this matter to our attention and I am sorry you
were not satisfied with our previous response.

I have investigated your concerns and now provide the following at stage 2
of the council’s complaints process:

Your original request asked for the following information: 

In connection with the Hough Top Court Planning Application: 23/06663/FU,
various documents and reports in the planning portal were revised as a
result of multiple discussions and communications between the Applicant
and various Council departments.

For example, specific advice given by Highways, Design, Planning, Finance
and other Departments involved is not included within the uploaded
documents - yet the existence of such advice, meetings and consultations
is referred to or summarised several times in Planning Officers reports.

As the applicant is Leeds City Council's own Council Housing Growth Team,
we believe such information should also have been made publicly available.
Therefore, under the Freedom of Information Act, I request the following
information:

Information held by Leeds City Council relating to planning application
number 23/06663/FU. My request specifically includes all and any
communications to, from and between the applicant (Council Housing Growth
Team and their Agents) and any internal LCC department, including the
Planning Department, Highways, LCC Design Team, LCC Landscape Team, LCC
Nature Conservation Team, Finance, Political Groups, Corporate Governance
etc.

It should include text of emails, agendas, summaries or minutes of
meetings, any written discussions and responses or other communications
about the application (and proposed or actioned changes to it or
documents).

My request excludes plans, drawings, reports etc. that are or have been
available for public viewing on the public access hub, and public comments
received about the application. It also excludes information already
supplied under previous Freedom of Information requests via this site.

The requested timescale is 6th January 2024 to 6th August 2024.

In response to your request the council disclosed 64 pages of records it
considered to be in scope of your request. Following this disclosure you
advised that you considered records to be missing, in particular records
of internal communications, including correspondence, notes of meetings,
and documents shared about this matter. You also provided further
clarification regarding information specifically that you considered was
missing from the disclosure. I will address each of these points below
having requested a response from the relevant service area on this
matter. 

What is specifically missing are any discussions between the applicant
(Council Housing Growth Team and their Agents), the Planning Department
and LCC Design Team about the design issues.

For example:

1) At the 7th March panel, John Stonard said:   “So, yes, the situation is
I'm unable to support this scheme on the design. The NPPF requires that
schemes that are not good design should be refused. I do not believe this
is a good design.”

The service have advised that this comment was based on the NPPF which is
a national policy, rather than any specific internal discussion.
[1]National Planning Policy Framework - GOV.UK 

2) Most of the 100 plus objections specifically mentioned the poor design,
layout, and poor materials choice, and Panel and the Planning Department
also shared reservations .

I note that your original request advised that you did not wish to receive
public comments in response to the design and these were therefore not
provided to you. There are no records of internal discussions about these
objections held by the council. 

3)  And in CHGT's 18th April response to that feedback, they mention many
times that various discussions have been held about the design, layout and
materials. Examples include: "To further improve the differentiation
between surfacing materials around the apartments we have also addressed
the statutory design consultee’s comments..."  "We have taken on board...
statutory design consultee comments regarding the apartment elevations." 
 "In addition, we have explored the possibility of transitioning the brick
material through the site. However, after consultation, the statutory
design consultee does not believe this is necessary and they will not
support the use of artificial stone."

Consultee comments, such as the statutory design ones referred to above,
are not internal communications and rather their comments are all
available on the Public Access site for this planning matter. 

Given the above, would you not expect there to also be several unpublished
documents or reports containing initial comments from the Design team;
some emails back and forth between parties discussing; probably further
suggestions and rejections; before arriving at an agreement?  Would there
not be financial information about the costs of stone Vs brick?  Detail of
the ball strike fencing costs?

I am advised that no further records are held in respect of this matter.
This includes not just email correspondence but also minutes of meetings
or documents shared. 

However in reviewing your original request I am of the view that
information may not have been shared with you in response to this request
as it was considered to be out of scope due to the following point of your
original request; 

'It also excludes information already supplied under previous Freedom of
Information requests via this site.' 

Whilst a significant amount of information has been provided in response
to other Freedom of Information requests regarding Hough Top Court
Planning Application: 23/06663/FU, I do not believe this was disclosed
through [2]www.whatdotheyknow.com. As such attached to this response is
information which has previously been disclosed in response to a different
FOI request. Some of this may duplicate the information you have already
received, and some may also be out of scope of your original request due
to the date range and specifics of your request, however this covers the
entirety of the information held by the council on this matter, aside from
information on the public access site. Please note, due to its size, this
will be sent in 5 parts. The first part is attached to this response.

In providing this, please note that personal information has been redacted
in accordance with Reg 12(3) of the Environmental Information Regulations,
as its release would breach the first data protection principle of the UK
GDPR (fair and lawful processing).

In addition, a small amount of correspondence has been redacted under Reg
12(5)(b) of the EIR on the basis that it is covered by Legal Professional
Privilege. This is because it constitutes professional legal advice
between the Council’s legal service and our Planning Service in respect of
the application, and the disclosure of this would (as defined by the EIR)
‘adversely affect the course of justice’. In this regard, the Information
Commissioner’s Office recognises that it is fundamental to the English
legal system that a client can speak freely and frankly with their legal
adviser to obtain legal advice based on full knowledge of all the relevant
circumstances of the case.

When considering any exception under the Regulations, the public interest
test must, of course, be considered. In addition, I am aware that, under
Reg 12(1), there is a presumption in favour of disclosure in this regard.
In considering this matter, however, I am not of the view that there is
(outside of a general argument in favour of transparency) a public
interest in the disclosure of this correspondence which is of a very
technical nature. Conversely, there is a very firm public interest in
maintaining the concept of Legal Professional Privilege. The Upper
Tribunal for Information Rights has, for example, previously accepted the
submission that the risk of the disclosure of legally privileged
information, leading to a weakening of confidence in the general principle
of LPP, was a public interest factor of “very considerable weight” in
favour of maintaining the exception. It also added that there would have
to be “special or unusual factors” in a particular case to justify not
giving it this weight, and I am not of the view that such factors exist
here. Given the above, I am of the view that the overwhelming public
interest lies in the maintenance of this exception.

A small amount of information has also been redacted in accordance with
Reg 12(5)(e) of the Regulations. This states that information can be
considered exempt if it ‘involves the disclosure of internal
communications’, such as those between Council Officers (although, as can
be seen by the amount of information disclosed, the Council has only
applied this exception in limitation). With respect to the public interest
test for this exception, whilst I, again, accept that there is a general
public interest argument in favour of transparency, there is also a clear
public interest in public authorities having the space to exchange views
and ‘think’ in private as this maintains the ability for officers to have
a free and frank exchange of views before a particular matter is resolved.
Given that there is already a considerable amount of information
concerning this planning application in the public domain, and that it
will also be determined at a public plans panel, I am not of the view that
the exception of this correspondence limits public participation in
environmental decision making.

This concludes my response to your appeal. If you remain dissatisfied with
the response of the council under Regulation 18, you are entitled to apply
to the Information Commissioner for a decision as to whether, in any
specified respect, your request has not been dealt with in accordance with
parts 2 and 3 of the Regulations.

Should you wish to contact the Commissioner’s Office then you can via
their website at [3]www.ico.org.uk.

Yours sincerely, 

Olivia Knight 

Principal Information Governance Officer 

Leeds City Council 

══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

The information in this email (and any attachment) may be for the intended
recipient only. If you know you are not the intended recipient, please do
not use or disclose the information in any way and please delete this
email (and any attachment) from your system.

The Council does not accept service of legal documents by e-mail.

Legal notice: Leeds City Council contracts on the basis of a formal
letter, contract or order form. An e-mail from Leeds City Council will not
create a contract unless it clearly and expressly states otherwise. For
further information please refer to:
[4]https://www.leeds.gov.uk/councillors-and...

References

Visible links
1. https://www.gov.uk/government/publicatio...
2. http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/
3. http://www.ico.org.uk/
4. https://www.leeds.gov.uk/councillors-and...

Part 4

Olivia Knight

Principal Information Governance Officer

Information Management & Governance

Legal, Democratic & Information Governance

Leeds City Council

Please note I do not work Tuesdays

From: DPFOI
Sent: Friday, November 8, 2024 4:05 PM
To: Ian Feber <[FOI #1155813 email]>
Subject: MPGCU03SZ - Internal Review response

Dear Ian Feber,

I refer to your request for an internal review on your recent
Environmental Information Regulations request MPGCU03SZ. I would like to
thank you for bringing this matter to our attention and I am sorry you
were not satisfied with our previous response.

I have investigated your concerns and now provide the following at stage 2
of the council’s complaints process:

Your original request asked for the following information: 

In connection with the Hough Top Court Planning Application: 23/06663/FU,
various documents and reports in the planning portal were revised as a
result of multiple discussions and communications between the Applicant
and various Council departments.

For example, specific advice given by Highways, Design, Planning, Finance
and other Departments involved is not included within the uploaded
documents - yet the existence of such advice, meetings and consultations
is referred to or summarised several times in Planning Officers reports.

As the applicant is Leeds City Council's own Council Housing Growth Team,
we believe such information should also have been made publicly available.
Therefore, under the Freedom of Information Act, I request the following
information:

Information held by Leeds City Council relating to planning application
number 23/06663/FU. My request specifically includes all and any
communications to, from and between the applicant (Council Housing Growth
Team and their Agents) and any internal LCC department, including the
Planning Department, Highways, LCC Design Team, LCC Landscape Team, LCC
Nature Conservation Team, Finance, Political Groups, Corporate Governance
etc.

It should include text of emails, agendas, summaries or minutes of
meetings, any written discussions and responses or other communications
about the application (and proposed or actioned changes to it or
documents).

My request excludes plans, drawings, reports etc. that are or have been
available for public viewing on the public access hub, and public comments
received about the application. It also excludes information already
supplied under previous Freedom of Information requests via this site.

The requested timescale is 6th January 2024 to 6th August 2024.

In response to your request the council disclosed 64 pages of records it
considered to be in scope of your request. Following this disclosure you
advised that you considered records to be missing, in particular records
of internal communications, including correspondence, notes of meetings,
and documents shared about this matter. You also provided further
clarification regarding information specifically that you considered was
missing from the disclosure. I will address each of these points below
having requested a response from the relevant service area on this
matter. 

What is specifically missing are any discussions between the applicant
(Council Housing Growth Team and their Agents), the Planning Department
and LCC Design Team about the design issues.

For example:

1) At the 7th March panel, John Stonard said:   “So, yes, the situation is
I'm unable to support this scheme on the design. The NPPF requires that
schemes that are not good design should be refused. I do not believe this
is a good design.”

The service have advised that this comment was based on the NPPF which is
a national policy, rather than any specific internal discussion.
[1]National Planning Policy Framework - GOV.UK 

2) Most of the 100 plus objections specifically mentioned the poor design,
layout, and poor materials choice, and Panel and the Planning Department
also shared reservations .

I note that your original request advised that you did not wish to receive
public comments in response to the design and these were therefore not
provided to you. There are no records of internal discussions about these
objections held by the council. 

3)  And in CHGT's 18th April response to that feedback, they mention many
times that various discussions have been held about the design, layout and
materials. Examples include: "To further improve the differentiation
between surfacing materials around the apartments we have also addressed
the statutory design consultee’s comments..."  "We have taken on board...
statutory design consultee comments regarding the apartment elevations." 
 "In addition, we have explored the possibility of transitioning the brick
material through the site. However, after consultation, the statutory
design consultee does not believe this is necessary and they will not
support the use of artificial stone."

Consultee comments, such as the statutory design ones referred to above,
are not internal communications and rather their comments are all
available on the Public Access site for this planning matter. 

Given the above, would you not expect there to also be several unpublished
documents or reports containing initial comments from the Design team;
some emails back and forth between parties discussing; probably further
suggestions and rejections; before arriving at an agreement?  Would there
not be financial information about the costs of stone Vs brick?  Detail of
the ball strike fencing costs?

I am advised that no further records are held in respect of this matter.
This includes not just email correspondence but also minutes of meetings
or documents shared. 

However in reviewing your original request I am of the view that
information may not have been shared with you in response to this request
as it was considered to be out of scope due to the following point of your
original request; 

'It also excludes information already supplied under previous Freedom of
Information requests via this site.' 

Whilst a significant amount of information has been provided in response
to other Freedom of Information requests regarding Hough Top Court
Planning Application: 23/06663/FU, I do not believe this was disclosed
through [2]www.whatdotheyknow.com. As such attached to this response is
information which has previously been disclosed in response to a different
FOI request. Some of this may duplicate the information you have already
received, and some may also be out of scope of your original request due
to the date range and specifics of your request, however this covers the
entirety of the information held by the council on this matter, aside from
information on the public access site. Please note, due to its size, this
will be sent in 5 parts. The first part is attached to this response.

In providing this, please note that personal information has been redacted
in accordance with Reg 12(3) of the Environmental Information Regulations,
as its release would breach the first data protection principle of the UK
GDPR (fair and lawful processing).

In addition, a small amount of correspondence has been redacted under Reg
12(5)(b) of the EIR on the basis that it is covered by Legal Professional
Privilege. This is because it constitutes professional legal advice
between the Council’s legal service and our Planning Service in respect of
the application, and the disclosure of this would (as defined by the EIR)
‘adversely affect the course of justice’. In this regard, the Information
Commissioner’s Office recognises that it is fundamental to the English
legal system that a client can speak freely and frankly with their legal
adviser to obtain legal advice based on full knowledge of all the relevant
circumstances of the case.

When considering any exception under the Regulations, the public interest
test must, of course, be considered. In addition, I am aware that, under
Reg 12(1), there is a presumption in favour of disclosure in this regard.
In considering this matter, however, I am not of the view that there is
(outside of a general argument in favour of transparency) a public
interest in the disclosure of this correspondence which is of a very
technical nature. Conversely, there is a very firm public interest in
maintaining the concept of Legal Professional Privilege. The Upper
Tribunal for Information Rights has, for example, previously accepted the
submission that the risk of the disclosure of legally privileged
information, leading to a weakening of confidence in the general principle
of LPP, was a public interest factor of “very considerable weight” in
favour of maintaining the exception. It also added that there would have
to be “special or unusual factors” in a particular case to justify not
giving it this weight, and I am not of the view that such factors exist
here. Given the above, I am of the view that the overwhelming public
interest lies in the maintenance of this exception.

A small amount of information has also been redacted in accordance with
Reg 12(5)(e) of the Regulations. This states that information can be
considered exempt if it ‘involves the disclosure of internal
communications’, such as those between Council Officers (although, as can
be seen by the amount of information disclosed, the Council has only
applied this exception in limitation). With respect to the public interest
test for this exception, whilst I, again, accept that there is a general
public interest argument in favour of transparency, there is also a clear
public interest in public authorities having the space to exchange views
and ‘think’ in private as this maintains the ability for officers to have
a free and frank exchange of views before a particular matter is resolved.
Given that there is already a considerable amount of information
concerning this planning application in the public domain, and that it
will also be determined at a public plans panel, I am not of the view that
the exception of this correspondence limits public participation in
environmental decision making.

This concludes my response to your appeal. If you remain dissatisfied with
the response of the council under Regulation 18, you are entitled to apply
to the Information Commissioner for a decision as to whether, in any
specified respect, your request has not been dealt with in accordance with
parts 2 and 3 of the Regulations.

Should you wish to contact the Commissioner’s Office then you can via
their website at [3]www.ico.org.uk.

Yours sincerely, 

Olivia Knight 

Principal Information Governance Officer 

Leeds City Council 

══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

The information in this email (and any attachment) may be for the intended
recipient only. If you know you are not the intended recipient, please do
not use or disclose the information in any way and please delete this
email (and any attachment) from your system.

The Council does not accept service of legal documents by e-mail.

Legal notice: Leeds City Council contracts on the basis of a formal
letter, contract or order form. An e-mail from Leeds City Council will not
create a contract unless it clearly and expressly states otherwise. For
further information please refer to:
[4]https://www.leeds.gov.uk/councillors-and...

References

Visible links
1. https://www.gov.uk/government/publicatio...
2. http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/
3. http://www.ico.org.uk/
4. https://www.leeds.gov.uk/councillors-and...

Part 5

Olivia Knight

Principal Information Governance Officer

Information Management & Governance

Legal, Democratic & Information Governance

Leeds City Council

Please note I do not work Tuesdays

From: DPFOI
Sent: Friday, November 8, 2024 4:05 PM
To: Ian Feber <[FOI #1155813 email]>
Subject: MPGCU03SZ - Internal Review response

Dear Ian Feber,

I refer to your request for an internal review on your recent
Environmental Information Regulations request MPGCU03SZ. I would like to
thank you for bringing this matter to our attention and I am sorry you
were not satisfied with our previous response.

I have investigated your concerns and now provide the following at stage 2
of the council’s complaints process:

Your original request asked for the following information: 

In connection with the Hough Top Court Planning Application: 23/06663/FU,
various documents and reports in the planning portal were revised as a
result of multiple discussions and communications between the Applicant
and various Council departments.

For example, specific advice given by Highways, Design, Planning, Finance
and other Departments involved is not included within the uploaded
documents - yet the existence of such advice, meetings and consultations
is referred to or summarised several times in Planning Officers reports.

As the applicant is Leeds City Council's own Council Housing Growth Team,
we believe such information should also have been made publicly available.
Therefore, under the Freedom of Information Act, I request the following
information:

Information held by Leeds City Council relating to planning application
number 23/06663/FU. My request specifically includes all and any
communications to, from and between the applicant (Council Housing Growth
Team and their Agents) and any internal LCC department, including the
Planning Department, Highways, LCC Design Team, LCC Landscape Team, LCC
Nature Conservation Team, Finance, Political Groups, Corporate Governance
etc.

It should include text of emails, agendas, summaries or minutes of
meetings, any written discussions and responses or other communications
about the application (and proposed or actioned changes to it or
documents).

My request excludes plans, drawings, reports etc. that are or have been
available for public viewing on the public access hub, and public comments
received about the application. It also excludes information already
supplied under previous Freedom of Information requests via this site.

The requested timescale is 6th January 2024 to 6th August 2024.

In response to your request the council disclosed 64 pages of records it
considered to be in scope of your request. Following this disclosure you
advised that you considered records to be missing, in particular records
of internal communications, including correspondence, notes of meetings,
and documents shared about this matter. You also provided further
clarification regarding information specifically that you considered was
missing from the disclosure. I will address each of these points below
having requested a response from the relevant service area on this
matter. 

What is specifically missing are any discussions between the applicant
(Council Housing Growth Team and their Agents), the Planning Department
and LCC Design Team about the design issues.

For example:

1) At the 7th March panel, John Stonard said:   “So, yes, the situation is
I'm unable to support this scheme on the design. The NPPF requires that
schemes that are not good design should be refused. I do not believe this
is a good design.”

The service have advised that this comment was based on the NPPF which is
a national policy, rather than any specific internal discussion.
[1]National Planning Policy Framework - GOV.UK 

2) Most of the 100 plus objections specifically mentioned the poor design,
layout, and poor materials choice, and Panel and the Planning Department
also shared reservations .

I note that your original request advised that you did not wish to receive
public comments in response to the design and these were therefore not
provided to you. There are no records of internal discussions about these
objections held by the council. 

3)  And in CHGT's 18th April response to that feedback, they mention many
times that various discussions have been held about the design, layout and
materials. Examples include: "To further improve the differentiation
between surfacing materials around the apartments we have also addressed
the statutory design consultee’s comments..."  "We have taken on board...
statutory design consultee comments regarding the apartment elevations." 
 "In addition, we have explored the possibility of transitioning the brick
material through the site. However, after consultation, the statutory
design consultee does not believe this is necessary and they will not
support the use of artificial stone."

Consultee comments, such as the statutory design ones referred to above,
are not internal communications and rather their comments are all
available on the Public Access site for this planning matter. 

Given the above, would you not expect there to also be several unpublished
documents or reports containing initial comments from the Design team;
some emails back and forth between parties discussing; probably further
suggestions and rejections; before arriving at an agreement?  Would there
not be financial information about the costs of stone Vs brick?  Detail of
the ball strike fencing costs?

I am advised that no further records are held in respect of this matter.
This includes not just email correspondence but also minutes of meetings
or documents shared. 

However in reviewing your original request I am of the view that
information may not have been shared with you in response to this request
as it was considered to be out of scope due to the following point of your
original request; 

'It also excludes information already supplied under previous Freedom of
Information requests via this site.' 

Whilst a significant amount of information has been provided in response
to other Freedom of Information requests regarding Hough Top Court
Planning Application: 23/06663/FU, I do not believe this was disclosed
through [2]www.whatdotheyknow.com. As such attached to this response is
information which has previously been disclosed in response to a different
FOI request. Some of this may duplicate the information you have already
received, and some may also be out of scope of your original request due
to the date range and specifics of your request, however this covers the
entirety of the information held by the council on this matter, aside from
information on the public access site. Please note, due to its size, this
will be sent in 5 parts. The first part is attached to this response.

In providing this, please note that personal information has been redacted
in accordance with Reg 12(3) of the Environmental Information Regulations,
as its release would breach the first data protection principle of the UK
GDPR (fair and lawful processing).

In addition, a small amount of correspondence has been redacted under Reg
12(5)(b) of the EIR on the basis that it is covered by Legal Professional
Privilege. This is because it constitutes professional legal advice
between the Council’s legal service and our Planning Service in respect of
the application, and the disclosure of this would (as defined by the EIR)
‘adversely affect the course of justice’. In this regard, the Information
Commissioner’s Office recognises that it is fundamental to the English
legal system that a client can speak freely and frankly with their legal
adviser to obtain legal advice based on full knowledge of all the relevant
circumstances of the case.

When considering any exception under the Regulations, the public interest
test must, of course, be considered. In addition, I am aware that, under
Reg 12(1), there is a presumption in favour of disclosure in this regard.
In considering this matter, however, I am not of the view that there is
(outside of a general argument in favour of transparency) a public
interest in the disclosure of this correspondence which is of a very
technical nature. Conversely, there is a very firm public interest in
maintaining the concept of Legal Professional Privilege. The Upper
Tribunal for Information Rights has, for example, previously accepted the
submission that the risk of the disclosure of legally privileged
information, leading to a weakening of confidence in the general principle
of LPP, was a public interest factor of “very considerable weight” in
favour of maintaining the exception. It also added that there would have
to be “special or unusual factors” in a particular case to justify not
giving it this weight, and I am not of the view that such factors exist
here. Given the above, I am of the view that the overwhelming public
interest lies in the maintenance of this exception.

A small amount of information has also been redacted in accordance with
Reg 12(5)(e) of the Regulations. This states that information can be
considered exempt if it ‘involves the disclosure of internal
communications’, such as those between Council Officers (although, as can
be seen by the amount of information disclosed, the Council has only
applied this exception in limitation). With respect to the public interest
test for this exception, whilst I, again, accept that there is a general
public interest argument in favour of transparency, there is also a clear
public interest in public authorities having the space to exchange views
and ‘think’ in private as this maintains the ability for officers to have
a free and frank exchange of views before a particular matter is resolved.
Given that there is already a considerable amount of information
concerning this planning application in the public domain, and that it
will also be determined at a public plans panel, I am not of the view that
the exception of this correspondence limits public participation in
environmental decision making.

This concludes my response to your appeal. If you remain dissatisfied with
the response of the council under Regulation 18, you are entitled to apply
to the Information Commissioner for a decision as to whether, in any
specified respect, your request has not been dealt with in accordance with
parts 2 and 3 of the Regulations.

Should you wish to contact the Commissioner’s Office then you can via
their website at [3]www.ico.org.uk.

Yours sincerely, 

Olivia Knight 

Principal Information Governance Officer 

Leeds City Council 

══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

The information in this email (and any attachment) may be for the intended
recipient only. If you know you are not the intended recipient, please do
not use or disclose the information in any way and please delete this
email (and any attachment) from your system.

The Council does not accept service of legal documents by e-mail.

Legal notice: Leeds City Council contracts on the basis of a formal
letter, contract or order form. An e-mail from Leeds City Council will not
create a contract unless it clearly and expressly states otherwise. For
further information please refer to:
[4]https://www.leeds.gov.uk/councillors-and...

References

Visible links
1. https://www.gov.uk/government/publicatio...
2. http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/
3. http://www.ico.org.uk/
4. https://www.leeds.gov.uk/councillors-and...

Dear Ian Feber,

Thank you for your email. I will pass your concerns onto the relevant service area and ask if they would like to make any further comment on this matter.

However if you remain dissatisfied with the councils response, as outlined under Regulation 18, you are entitled to apply to the Information Commissioner for a decision as to whether, in any specified respect, your request has not been dealt with in accordance with parts 2 and 3 of the Regulations.

Yours sincerely,

Olivia Knight
Principal Information Governance Officer
Information Management & Governance
Legal, Democratic & Information Governance
Leeds City Council

Please note I do not work Tuesdays

show quoted sections

Dear Mr. Feber,

Thank you for your below email and please do accept my apologies for the
delay in a response being provided in this regard. To advise, following
receipt of your email, Ms. Knight did make further enquiries with the
Planning Service in respect of your below concerns, and they have
undertaken a further search for information held.

I have now read through this (and made redactions for personal data
accordingly). To note, due to the file size of these documents, I am
required to send this email in two parts.

I would also like to apologise personal for the delay in responding to you
on this matter – unfortunately I have been absent from work due to
COVID-19 and have only returned today.

Regards,

Richard Brook,

Principal Information Governance Officer,

Information Requests Management,

Legal, Democratic and Information Governance.

t: 0113 37 87118

e: [1][email address]

“Information is everyone’s business and responsibility.”

show quoted sections

PART 2

From: DPFOI
Sent: 16 December 2024 12:32
To: [FOI #1155813 email]
Subject: RE: RESPONSE Internal review of Freedom of Information request -
All Communications/Emails/Text/Documents/Notes/Advice between the
Applicant and other LCC Departments concerning the Hough Top Court
Planning Application: 23/06663/FU

Dear Mr. Feber,

Thank you for your below email and please do accept my apologies for the
delay in a response being provided in this regard. To advise, following
receipt of your email, Ms. Knight did make further enquiries with the
Planning Service in respect of your below concerns, and they have
undertaken a further search for information held.

I have now read through this (and made redactions for personal data
accordingly). To note, due to the file size of these documents, I am
required to send this email in two parts.

I would also like to apologise personal for the delay in responding to you
on this matter – unfortunately I have been absent from work due to
COVID-19 and have only returned today.

Regards,

Richard Brook,

Principal Information Governance Officer,

Information Requests Management,

Legal, Democratic and Information Governance.

t: 0113 37 87118

e: [1][email address]

“Information is everyone’s business and responsibility.”

show quoted sections