Caversham Park Closure: Costs and Savings

The request was partially successful.

Dear British Broadcasting Corporation,

Under the Freedom Of Information act, I would like to request that you provide me with the total expected costs and savings to the BBC as a whole (such that expenses being transferred from BBC Monitoring to another BBC department are not counted as savings), associated with the closure of Caversham Park.

If possible, provide totals for one-off and ongoing costs and savings separately. If not, please indicate the period over which the one-off costs are being amortized in your calculations.

Please also state which factors have been considered in coming up with these totals

By way of example, one-off costs include (but are not limited to):

* Costs of moving or disposing of and replacing equipment (e.g. furniture, reception equipment)
* Costs associated with site disposal (surveyors and legal etc.)
* Excess fare payments and travel expenses for staff travelling into London
* Costs associated with a predictable loss of current staff and recruitment into their roles.
* Opportunity costs due to staff working on move-related activities instead of their normal work.

By way of example, ongoing costs include (but are not limited to)

* London weighting for roles moving into London
* Rent of new premises for Radio Berkshire
* Subscriptions to extra internet-based 3rd party TV signal providers (where these can no longer be received from satellites)
* Cost of space in NBH occupied by BBCM staff (share of maintenance of that space)
* Cost of space occupied by those who have been moved in order to accommodate BBCM staff in NBH
* Increased cost of collaboration with partner organisations currently based in Reading

By way of example, ongoing savings include (but are not limited to)

* Caversham Park site maintenance
* Subscriptions to satellite-based TV providers (for channels that cannot be received in London)
* Reduction in travel budget for customer service staff.

This is not a request for a detailed breakdown of the costs and savings (but if that is available, it would be welcome), nor is it a request for accurate costings that will only be known for certain after the move. This is simply a request for the totals that were used when calculating that this is an "effective way to demonstrate efficiency and ensure that more money can be invested in content".

Yours faithfully,
Roy Bland

FOI Enquiries, British Broadcasting Corporation

Dear Roy Bland

Thank you for your request for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, as detailed in your email below. Your request was received on 27/09/2017. We will deal with your request as promptly as possible, and at the latest within 20 working days. If you have any queries about your request, please contact us at the address below.

The reference number for your request is RFI20171437.

Kind regards,

Information Rights

BBC Freedom of Information
BC2 A4, Broadcast Centre
201 Wood Lane
London W12 7TP

www.bbc.co.uk/foi
Email: [BBC request email]

Tel: 020 8008 2882

Dear FOI Enquiries,

Regarding request RFI20171437, which you received on 27/09/2017. On that date, you stated that you "will deal with your request as promptly as possible, and at the latest within 20 working days."

If my arithmetic and understanding of weekends and public holidays is correct, 20 working days have elapsed.

The request was received on a Wednesday, 28 days ago. There have been 4 weekends since then. A weekend is 2 days long. The last public holiday was in August.

Could you please deal with my request as promptly as possible, or at the latest within 20 working days? I understand that doing so might require backwards time travel, I understand that this might be tricky, but perhaps a trip in the TARDIS might help?

If you do not immediately provide the information I requested, or satisfactorily demonstrate the error in my arithmetic above, I will be raising a complaint with the information commissioner and requesting an internal review.

Yours sincerely,

Roy Bland

Dear British Broadcasting Corporation,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of British Broadcasting Corporation's handling of my FOI request 'Caversham Park Closure: Costs and Savings'.

Reference: RFI20171437

I have received no response. It is now 35 days (25 working) since the request was made.

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,

Roy Bland

FOI Enquiries, British Broadcasting Corporation

Dear Roy Bland,

We have received your request for an internal review relating to request made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Your request for an internal review was received on 31 October 2017. We shall deal with the review as promptly as possible and, at the latest, within 20 working days. If you have any queries please contact us at the address below.

The reference number for your internal review is IR2017078.

BBC Information Rights
BC2 A4, Broadcast Centre
201 Wood Lane
London, W12 7TP

Website: www.bbc.co.uk/foi/
Email: [BBC request email]
Tel: 020 8008 2882
Fax: 020 8008 2398

Dear FOI Enquiries,

RFI20171437 and IR2017078

Yours sincerely,

Roy Bland

FOI Enquiries, British Broadcasting Corporation

1 Attachment

Dear Roy Bland,

Please find attached the BBC's response to your internal review request.

Best wishes,

BBC Information Rights
BC2 A4, Broadcast Centre
201 Wood Lane
London W12 7TP

Website: www.bbc.co.uk/foi
Email: [BBC request email]

show quoted sections

Dear FOI Enquiries,

Regarding the request: RFI20171437 and its corresponding internal review request: IR2017078

On the 22nd of December, you wrote
"I note that the BBC has not yet provided a substantive response to the requester. I have
spoken with the relevant division can confirm that the BBC’s is processing the request, and
a response will be provided shortly. "

10 working days have passed since then, and no response has yet been provided. That is stretching the definition of shortly. It is actually half the maximum allowable time for the original response.

The response to the request for an internal review took 39 working days (Which is more than 20).

The request for an internal review was made 24 working days after the initial request (which is more than 20).

That adds up to 73 working days with no substantive response. Is there a finger somewhere that could be pulled out?

Yours sincerely,

Roy Bland

Dear British Broadcasting Corporation,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of British Broadcasting Corporation's handling of my FOI request 'Caversham Park Closure: Costs and Savings', and the corresponding internal review requested on the 31st of October. (References IR2017078 / RFI20171437)

This request is now preposterously overdue.

On the 22nd of December, you wrote that the BBC "failed to comply", and that "a response will be provided shortly"

Given that it is now more than 20 working days since that declaration (i.e. longer than the period normal allowable for a request) I would have expected a substantive response by now. It is now over 80 working days since the initial request.

Please tell me what you mean by "shortly". In my dictionary, "shortly" has two senses - "in a short time" and "briefly". Given that you have now exceeded the time limit four times, you are clearly not using the first definition. Even the second definition is hard to justify, as brevity is no justification for such an extreme delay. I suppose that as such terms are relative in nature, you might be using a geological or cosmological timescale, rather than one relating to the relevant act.

It should be noted that the review itself took nearly 40 days for you to conduct, which did nothing more than tell me what I already knew (i.e. that you had taken longer than 20 working days to respond), and mislead into thinking that the request is actually being handled.

Your silence on this matter is telling. It is indicative not only of your contempt for the licence payer and the FOI process, but also that the disposal of Caversham is expected to cost more than it saves. If more money is truly expected to be made available to invest in content, you'd be shouting it from the rooftops.

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,

Roy Bland

FOI Enquiries, British Broadcasting Corporation

2 Attachments

 

Dear Mr Bland,

                                            

Please find attached the response to your request for information,
reference RFI20171437.

 

Yours sincerely

 

BBC Information Policy and Compliance

Room BC2 A4

Broadcast Centre

White City

London

W12 7TS

UK

 

Website: [1]www.bbc.co.uk/foi

Email: [2]mailto:[BBC request email]

 

[3]Description: Description: \\BBCFS2025\UserData$\myrien01\Documents\My
Pictures\BBC.png

 

References

Visible links
1. file:///tmp/www.bbc.co.uk/foi
2. mailto:[BBC request email]

Looking for an EU Authority?

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

AskTheEU.org