CANE HILL TRAFFIC - Coulsdon POST OFFICE JUNCTION - Why Improvement Scheme still not Implemented - PORTNALLS ROAD ACCESS

The request was partially successful.

Dear Croydon Borough Council,

When the Cane Hill development received planning permission, there were two conditions.

One related to the number of houses that could be built / sold / occupied before improvement works were undertaken at the Post Office junction at Lion Green Road / Chipstead Valley Road in Coulsdon, and the other related to the number of houses that could be built / sold / occupied before the southern Portnalls Road access could be used / had to be used.

Please provide full details of each of these conditions as originally specified and the dates.

Please also provide full details of any amendments to either of these conditions that may have occurred - weblinks to relevant reports and decisions, with reasoning.

It is understood that Barratts have agreed to pay for the traffic improvement works at the Post Office -please confirm.

Please provide a plan showing exactly what works are agreed?
Please also provide any analysis the council has to show the likely benefits and costs.
Why have these works not yet begun?
When may we expect to see them started and completed?

Please provide copies of all emails between Croydon Council officers and any of the following that relate to either of these conditions / schemes and ./ or the works required to implement the traffic improvement or the new access since the planning application was approved to date:
Local residents / organisations
Croydon councillors
Transport for London
Barratts and their contractors / consultants

Yours faithfully,

Abdul Sulieman

Freedom of Information, Croydon Borough Council

 

Dear Mr Sulieman

 

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/

Dear Freedom of Information,

We are only a few days before the absolute deadline for reply - and the council should not treat that date as the target for response.

Could you please confirm that you will reply this week, before the Christmas period begins?

Yours sincerely,

Abdul Sulieman

Information, Croydon Borough Council

Hi Abdul, we are chasing the response form the department and will send out to you as soon as we receive this. I can't confirm a time-frame but of course we are actively working to get this completed within the deadline and ASAP.

Thanks,

Steven Borg
Information Co-ordinator
Croydon Council

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

For Subject Access Request queries please email - [email address]
For Freedom of Information Request queries please email - [email address]

show quoted sections

Dear Information,

Thank you for your reply.
However we are now past the deadline, and still there is no effective response.

Please confirm the reason for the delay and when I may expect my information.

Yours sincerely,

Abdul Sulieman

Information, Croydon Borough Council

Dear Mr Sulieman

We apologise for the time this is taking to process.

Your request is still receiving attention and we are urgently chasing the answering department for a response.

Once we have this we will immediately send out to you.

Apologies for any inconvenience.

Kind regards.

Jo

Jo Welch-Hall
Information Support Officer

Resources Department
Customer Transformation and Communications Services
7th Floor, Zone B
Bernard Weatherill House
8 Mint Walk
Croydon CR0 1EA

show quoted sections

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 'CANE HILL TRAFFIC - Coulsdon POST OFFICE JUNCTION - Why Improvement Scheme still not Implemented - PORTNALLS ROAD ACCESS'.

23-11-17 FOI made
24-11-17 LBC accepted FOI
17-12-17 asked if reply ready
18-12-17 LBC assured urgently pursuing
22-12-17 asked why deadline missed
27-12-17 LBC apologise for delay, no explanation
26-1-18 Internal Review submitted

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

Yours faithfully,

Abdul Sulieman

Freedom of Information, Croydon Borough Council

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Sulieman 

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 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

Passman, Howard, Croydon Borough Council

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Sulieman,

 

Thank you for your email dated 26 January 2018. 

 

I note that in that email you stated that you wish to have the handling of
your request Reviewed. 

 

Can I just confirm that you wish to be provided with an explanation as to
why the reply was provided to you outside of the 20 working day time limit
on 26 January 2018?

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Howard Passman

Legal Services

020 8726 6000 ext. 62318

 

 

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

Resources Department

Legal Services

7th Floor Zone C
Bernard Weatherill House

8 Mint Walk

Croydon CR0 1EA

 

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

Dear Passman, Howard,

NO - or at least not only that.

This reply is manifestly unacceptable.
Detailed reasons will follow shortly.

Dear Mr Sulieman

Environmental Information Regulations

Your request has been considered under the provisions of the Environmental Information Regulations Act. Please accept our apologies for the delay in responding to you. Specifically, you have requested the following information:

“When the Cane Hill development received planning permission, there were two conditions.

One related to the number of houses that could be built / sold / occupied before improvement works were undertaken at the Post Office junction at Lion Green Road / Chipstead Valley Road in Coulsdon, and the other related to the number of houses that could be built / sold / occupied before the southern Portnalls Road access could be used / had to be used.

Please provide full details of each of these conditions as originally specified and the dates.

Please also provide full details of any amendments to either of these conditions that may have occurred - weblinks to relevant reports and decisions, with reasoning.

It is understood that Barratts have agreed to pay for the traffic improvement works at the Post Office -please confirm.

Please provide a plan showing exactly what works are agreed?
Please also provide any analysis the council has to show the likely benefits and costs.
Why have these works not yet begun?
When may we expect to see them started and completed?

Please provide copies of all emails between Croydon Council officers and any of the following that relate to either of these conditions / schemes and ./ or the works required to implement the traffic improvement or the new access since the planning application was approved to date:

Local residents / organisations
Croydon councillors
Transport for London
Barratts and their contractors / consultants”

We believe that the information is exempt from disclosure under Regulation 12(4)(b) of the Environmental Information Regulations .

Regulation 12(4)(b) states:
“For the purposes of paragraph (1)(a), a public authority may refuse to disclose information to the extent that –
(b) the request for information is manifestly unreasonable”

To collate the response in this case would take an inordinate amount of time due to the huge volume of information involved. We believe that the cost of compliance would be too great and we therefore contend that the request is manifestly unreasonable.

The Place department have informed us they estimate there to be over 360 e-mails which are not centrally collated as there are a number of officers across the Place Department who will have sent or received emails on the topic in question. Therefore we estimate that to collate all emails to/from Croydon officers as per your request will take considerably more than 18 hours and deem this burden on council resources to be manifestly unreasonable.

In deciding whether to apply this exemption the Council is expected to balance the public interest test in withholding the information against the public interest in disclosing the information. In this case we have considered that the public interest favours non-disclosure due to the disproportionate burden involved which we believe would place a strain on council resources and get in the way of the council delivering mainstream services or answering other requests.

If you are dissatisfied with the way the Council has handled your request under the Environmental Information Regulations Act, you may ask for an internal review. This should be submitted to us within 40 working days of this response. You can do this by outlining the details of your complaint by:

Email: [email address]

Yours sincerely,

Abdul Sulieman

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 'CANE HILL TRAFFIC - Coulsdon POST OFFICE JUNCTION - Why Improvement Scheme still not Implemented - PORTNALLS ROAD ACCESS'.

2nd Internal Review:

Examination of other FOI / EIR on the WDTK website shows that the council appears to routinely delay to the last minute, often beyond it, and then provides limited information or a refusal which could and should have been issued much sooner.
This shows a lack of respect for the FOI / EIR process and and a determination to obstruct it.

The first Internal Review was submitted on 26 Jan 2018 due to the council not any substantive reply for over 2 months.
That complaint still stands.

The council then sent a manifestly unacceptable response later the same day.
The maters for Review now are:

1 - Failure to provide any substantive response for over 2 months.

2 - Providing a total refusal to provide any information, beyond an estimate that there are "over 360 emails".
If valid, this could have been provided within 2 weeks, and there is no possible excuse for taking so long to say this.

3 - The FOI / EIR did not only ask for emails. It asked first for other information.
None has been provided.

4 - There is no obvious reason why it should take over 18 hours to collate 360 emails. There is no information as to how may people, in the council were involved - it surely cannot be that many.

5 - The council has ignored its duty to assist, for example by suggesting how the Request might be refined to make it more easily managed.

6 - If there are for example 6 council officers involved, with say 60 emails each, then one would have thought these could be found by a suitable search - eg "Cane Hill", or "Barratts", with a result in less than 5 minutes.
It is then simply a matter of printing these to a PDF file which take no more than a minute each - probably more like 20 seconds.
Thus the total time should not exceed 8 hours at the most - and probably much less.

7 - It is also strange that there are so many as 360 emails, and it is unclear how this vague figure has been calculated.

8 - Rather than sending this blank refusal, the council should have offered advice as to how to modify the Request.

9 - As this comes under EIR, rather than FOI, the 18 hour limit as such does not apply.
There is a presumption under EIR of disclosure.
Three is a clear public interest in the matters requested, due to the impact on the local community of Cane Hill traffic, and the wide public interest in this development, and the traffic changes discussed.
The council is obliged to make a proper estimate of the time involved, and then conduct a public interest balancing exercise to see whether time beyond the FOI time limit is justified .

10 - There is no evidence that it has conducted any such exercise.
Instead it simply said it would take over 18 hours - with no proper estimate of time, and then issued a Refusal.
As the public interest test under EIR only arises if the time exceeds the FOI limit, a blanket refusal on that ground must mean the public interest test was not properly considered.

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

Yours faithfully,

Abdul Sulieman

Passman, Howard, Croydon Borough Council

Dear Mr Sulieman,

Thank you for the clarification. I will commence the Internal Review once I have received your substantive request, with the issues you wish me to consider.

Yours sincerely,

Howard Passman
Legal Services
020 8726 6000 ext. 62318

Resources Department
Legal Services
Commercial and Property Law
7th Floor Zone C
Bernard Weatherill House
8 Mint Walk
Croydon CR0 1EA

show quoted sections

Passman, Howard, Croydon Borough Council

Mr Sulieman,

Thank you for your email dated 6 February 2018 in which you requested an Internal Review of the Council’s response to your request for information.

I will be conducting the Internal Review and will endeavour to provide a response within the statutory timescales; that is no later than Tuesday 6 March 2018 . However, if for any reason there is a need to extend the time for the review I will contact you before that date.

Yours sincerely,

Howard Passman
Legal Services
020 8726 6000 ext. 62318

Resources Department
Legal Services
Commercial and Property Law
7th Floor Zone C
Bernard Weatherill House
8 Mint Walk
Croydon CR0 1EA
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

Passman, Howard, Croydon Borough Council

Dear Mr Sulieman,

Further to my email to you dated 9 February, I am writing to inform you that I will not be able to provide you with a response to your Internal Review by Tuesday 6 March 2018.

It has proved necessary to consult with a third party, whose information is being considered for release to you.

Therefore, I will respond your Internal Review no later than Tuesday 20 March 2018.

Please accept my apologies for any inconvenience that you may sufferer as a result of this delay.

Yours sincerely,

Howard Passman
Legal Services
020 8726 6000 ext. 62318

Resources Department
Legal Services
7th Floor Zone C
Bernard Weatherill House
8 Mint Walk
Croydon CR0 1EA

show quoted sections

Passman, Howard, Croydon Borough Council

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Sulieman,

 

Further to your email dated 6 February 2018 in which you requested an
Internal Review of the Council’s response to your request for information
made under the Environmental Information Regulations (EIR), regarding
planning conditions in respect of Cane Hill, Coulsdon Post Office Junction
and Portnalls Road. I have now concluded this review and I am able to
reply as follows.

 

In your request for information by e-mail dated 23 November 2017, you
requested the following information:

 

“When the Cane Hill development received planning permission, there were
two conditions.

 

One related to the number of houses that could be built / sold / occupied
before improvement works were undertaken at the Post Office junction at
Lion Green Road / Chipstead Valley Road in Coulsdon, and the other related
to the number of houses that could be built / sold / occupied before the
southern Portnalls Road access could be used / had to be used.

 

Please provide full details of each of these conditions as originally
specified and the dates.

 

Please also provide full details of any amendments to either of these
conditions that may have occurred - weblinks to relevant reports and
decisions, with reasoning.

 

It is understood that Barratts have agreed to pay for the traffic
improvement works at the Post Office -please confirm.

 

Please provide a plan showing exactly what works are agreed?

Please also provide any analysis the council has to show the likely
benefits and costs.

Why have these works not yet begun?

When may we expect to see them started and completed?

 

Please provide copies of all emails between Croydon Council officers and
any of the following that relate to either of these conditions / schemes
and ./ or the works required to implement the traffic improvement or the
new access since the planning application was approved to date:

 

Local residents / organisations

Croydon councillors

Transport for London

Barratts and their contractors / consultants”

 

The Council responded to you on 26 January 2018 stating that it considered
that the emails requested, “…copies of all emails between Croydon Council
officers and any of the following that relate to either of these
conditions / schemes and ./ or the works required to implement the traffic
improvement or the new access since the planning application was approved
to date…” were excepted from disclosure, under Regulation 12(4)(b) of EIR.
As the Council considered that the public interest favoured non-disclosure
due to the disproportionate burden involved in providing you with the
requested emails, which was believed likely to place a strain on Council
resources and divert resources from the provision of other Council
services.

 

The Council did not provide you with a response to the other parts of your
request.

 

In your request for an Internal Review dated 6 February 2018, you raised
the following issues:

“Examination of other FOI / EIR on the WDTK website shows that the council
appears to routinely delay to the last minute, often beyond it, and then
provides limited information or a refusal which could and should have been
issued much sooner.

 

This shows a lack of respect for the FOI / EIR process and a determination
to obstruct it.

 

The first Internal Review was submitted on 26 Jan 2018 due to the council
not any substantive reply for over 2 months.

 

That complaint still stands.

 

The council then sent a manifestly unacceptable response later the same
day.

 

The maters for Review now are:

 

1 - Failure to provide any substantive response for over 2 months.

 

2 - Providing a total refusal to provide any information, beyond an
estimate that there are "over 360 emails". 

 

If valid, this could have been provided within 2 weeks, and there is no
possible excuse for taking so long to say this.

 

3 - The FOI / EIR did not only ask for emails. It asked first for other
information. None has been provided.

 

4 - There is no obvious reason why it should take over 18 hours to collate
360 emails.  There is no information as to how may people, in the council
were involved - it surely cannot be that many.

 

5 - The council has ignored its duty to assist, for example by suggesting
how the Request might be refined to make it more easily managed.

 

6 - If there are for example 6 council officers involved, with say 60
emails each, then one would have thought these could be found by a
suitable search - eg "Cane Hill", or "Barratts", with a result in less
than 5 minutes.

It is then simply a matter of printing these to a PDF file which take no
more than a minute each - probably more like 20 seconds. Thus the total
time should not exceed 8 hours at the most - and probably much less.

 

7 - It is also strange that there are so many as 360 emails, and it is
unclear how this vague figure has been calculated.

 

8 - Rather than sending this blank refusal, the council should have
offered advice as to how to modify the Request.

 

9 - As this comes under EIR, rather than FOI, the 18 hour limit as such
does not apply.

 

There is a presumption under EIR of disclosure.

 

Three is a clear public interest in the matters requested, due to the
impact on the local community of Cane Hill traffic, and the wide public
interest in this development, and the traffic changes discussed.

 

The council is obliged to make a proper estimate of the time involved, and
then conduct a public interest balancing exercise to see whether time
beyond the FOI time limit is justified.

 

10 - There is no evidence that it has conducted any such exercise.

Instead it simply said it would take over 18 hours - with no proper
estimate of time, and then issued a Refusal.

 

As the public interest test under EIR only arises if the time exceeds the
FOI limit, a blanket refusal on that ground must mean the public interest
test was not properly considered.”

 

On receipt of you request for an Internal Review, I reviewed the
information that you were provided with in response to your request and
the issues you have raised as part of your Internal Review. I also
contacted Head of Transport, Planning and Strategic Transport.

 

In respect of the use of the exception available under regulation
12(4)(b))  I have carefully considered the use of this exception. I have
been informed, that the time spent to locate approximately 360 emails took
approximately 10 hours to complete.  Additional work was also undertaken
review the contents of a sample of these emails. The review of this sample
took approximately two hours. I am given to understand that the 360 emails
located represent the number of emails that have been identified (so far)
that are believed to be in scope of your request. This figure is likely to
be higher, as the emails are held across a number of individual officer
email accounts. 

 

Regulation 12(4)(b) states: “12(4) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(a), a
public authority may refuse to disclose information to the extent that -
(b) the request for information is manifestly unreasonable.” This
exception is intended to prevent public authorities from being exposed to
a disproportionate burdens or an unjustified level of distress, disruption
or irritation, in handling information requests.  Guidance issued by the
Information Commissioners Office defines the word “manifestly” as being an
obvious or clear quality to the unreasonableness.

 

This exception can apply if the cost or burden of dealing with a request
is considered to be too great. This is supported by the Upper Tribunal
case of Craven v The Information Commissioner and the Department of Energy
and Climate Change [2012] UKUT442 (AAC). “Taking the position under the
EIR first, it must be right that a public authority is entitled to refuse
a single extremely burdensome request under regulation 12(4)(b) as
“manifestly unreasonable”, purely on the basis that the cost of compliance
would be too great (assuming, of course, it is also satisfied that the
public interest test favours maintaining the exception). The absence of
any provision in the EIR equivalent to section 12 of FOIA makes such a
conclusion inescapable.”

 

In assessing whether the cost or burden of dealing with a request is “…too
great…” the Council is required to consider the proportionality of the
burden or costs involved.  In particular taking into account all the
circumstances of the case. While EIR does not set or include specific
framework for the assessment of cost in such circumstances, it is
permissible to use the Freedom of Information (FoIA) and Data Protection
(Appropriate Limit and Fees) Regulations 2004, as a benchmark.

 

There will always be some public interest in disclosure of environmental
information to promote transparency and accountability of public
authorities, greater public awareness and understanding of environmental
matters and how decision’s considered. As has been stated previously it is
estimated that there are over 360 e-mails (based on initial review
undertaken of a single officers email account) which may be covered by
your request. To just locate emails and undertake a very basic review of
their content has so far taken approximately 12 hours. Taking into account
the nature of these emails, it is estimated that to review locate and
review all of the emails to ascertain their contents and apply any
relevant exceptions (for example: disclosure of internal communications
(12(4)(e); Confidentiality of proceedings where confidentiality is
provided by law (12(5)(d) and/or the interests of the person who provided
the information (12(5)(f)), would take in excess of 18 hours to complete.

 

If the Freedom of Information (FoIA) and Data Protection (Appropriate
Limit and Fees) Regulations 2004, is used as a benchmark, this provides an
indication that these emails may be considered to be excepted under
Regulation 12(4)(b). While considering whether information may be exempt,
unlike FoIA the time required to review the information, decide whether an
exception may apply and redactions can be taken into account.

 

It is also important to consider the nature of the requested information
and any wider value in the requested information being made publicly
available and how this may assist understanding of underlying issues to
which the requested information relates. This must be balanced by the
disruption and diversion of resources that would inevitable result, if
attempts to locate and review all the emails held in an effort to meet
this aspect of your request. Therefore, the Council considers that the
public interest favours non-disclosure due to the disproportionate
diversion of resources that would result in providing you with the
requested information.

 

At the time of the initial refusal to provide you with the requested
information, I note that you were not offered, an opportunity to revise
this aspect of your request. You may if you wish, revise this aspect of
your request in an effort to enable the Council to provide you with the
information you are seeking. If you wish to do this, please contact the
Council’s Information Team ([1][Croydon Borough Council request email]) to discuss
whether it would be possible to do this.

 

As for the remainder of the information you requested, I am able to
provide you with the following information.

 

In respect of planning conditions (13/02527/P) I am able to provide you
with the following:

 

“2. No more than 187 dwellings shall be commenced until a scheme for the
highway improvements to the Chipstead Valley Road junction broadly in
accordance with Plans 0637-SK-12 Rev. A or 0637-SK-13 Rev. A has been
implemented and completed.

 

Reason: To mitigate the impacts of the development on the capacity of the
local highway network and comply with Policy T2 of the Replacement Unitary
Development Plan (The Croydon Plan) 2006 Saved Policies, Policy 6.3 of the

London Plan 2011 (and Revised Early Minor Alterations 2013) and Chapter 4
of the National Planning Policy Framework.”

 

“17. Within 3 months of 95% occupancy of the residential component of the
development an operational assessment of the traffic flows at the junction
of Chipstead Valley Road and Portnalls Road shall be carried out. Details
of the scope of the assessment shall have been previously submitted to and
approved by the Local Planning Authority. The completed assessment shall
be submitted to the Local Planning Authority in accordance with a period
agreed as part of the scoping.

 

Reason: To ensure satisfactory conditions of traffic movement and highway
safety, in accordance with Policy T2 of the Replacement Unitary
Development Plan (The Croydon Plan) 2006 Saved Policies and Policy 6.3 of
the London Plan 2011 (and Revised Early Minor Alterations 2013).”

 

“28. The southernmost access to the site from Portnalls Road shall not be
used by any vehicular traffic prior to the occupation of the 352nd
dwelling.

 

Reason: To protect the reasonable amenities of neighbouring residential
properties in accordance with Policy UD8 of the Replacement Unitary
Development Plan (The Croydon Plan) 2006 Saved Policies.”

 

Please also provide full details of any amendments to either of these
conditions that may have occurred - weblinks to relevant reports and
decisions, with reasoning.

·         The Council’s Planning Committee also considered this
application at their meeting held on [2]30 November 2017.

 

You may also search the Council’s [3]planning register (using 13/02527/P,
as the search term) to provide information in respect of the questions you
have asked regarding this planning application.

 

It is understood that Barratts have agreed to pay for the traffic
improvement works at the Post Office - please confirm.

·         I have been informed that junction improvements works on
Chipstead Valley Road were paid for by Barratts under planning condition 2
as detailed above.

Please provide a plan showing exactly what works are agreed?

·         Please see the attached impact assessment drafted by Transport
for London.

Please also provide any analysis the council has to show the likely
benefits and costs?

·         Please see the attached impact assessment drafted by Transport
for London.

 

Why have these works not yet begun?

·         I am able to confirm that these works started in February 2018

 

When may we expect to see them started and completed?

·         These works have been completed.

 

Lastly please accept my sincere apologies for the delay you experienced in
being provided with the information that you requested. The delays were as
a result of the time it took to identify in particular the emails you had
requested and the department providing information to the Council’s
Information Management Team to enable your response to be drafted. This
resulted in you being provided with a response that only considered the
emails that had been requested and which did not address the remaining
parts of your request. 

 

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

Legal Services

020 8726 6000 ext. 62318

 

 

 

Resources Department

Legal Services

7th Floor Zone C

Bernard Weatherill House

8 Mint Walk

Croydon CR0 1EA

 

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. mailto:[Croydon Borough Council request email]
2. https://democracy.croydon.gov.uk/documen...
3. Public Access
http://publicaccess2.croydon.gov.uk/onli...

Looking for an EU Authority?

You can request documents directly from EU Institutions at our sister site AskTheEU.org . Find out more .

AskTheEU.org