Communications re: feasibility study for a Women's Building on the former HMP Holloway site

Response to this request is long overdue. By law, under all circumstances, Islington Borough Council should have responded by now (details). You can complain by requesting an internal review.

Dear Islington Borough Council,
Please provide all information including but not limited to emails, communications, reports and correspondence, which concern:
1. A feasibility study for the proposed Women's Building or Women's Centre to be constructed on the site of Holloway Prison for Women (aka HMP Holloway), including any mention of a steering group or steering committee for the study, and any mention of a donation or funding for the study, since 1 August 2020
2. The Women’s Building Joint Steering Group or steering committee since 1 September 2022.

Yours faithfully,
Andrew Wilson

Islington Council, Islington Borough Council

 
 
 
Information request
Our reference: 3149861
Your reference: [FOI #971334 email] 

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

Dear Andrew Wilson
 
Freedom of Information Act 2000
 
Thank you for your Freedom of Information Act request, received on 12
April 2023. Your request has been processed, and your unique reference
number is FOI 3149861. Please make note of this reference number should
you need to contact us about your request.
 
Our team will send your request to the appropriate service area within
Islington Council, and an officer from that team will respond directly to
your request.
 
Yours faithfully
 
Information Governance Team
Islington Council
Resources
3rd Floor, 7 Newington Barrow Way
Islington
N7 7EP 
 
 
 
 
 
NOTE: Please do not edit the subject line when replying to this email.
 
Islington Council
This email contains proprietary confidential information some or all of
which may be legally privileged and/or subject to the provisions of
privacy legislation. It is intended solely for the addressee.
If you are not the intended recipient, an addressing or transmission error
has misdirected this e-mail; you must not use, disclose, copy, print or
disseminate the information contained within this e-mail. Please notify
the author immediately by replying to this email.
Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender,
except where the sender specifically states these to be the views of
Islington Council.
This email has been scanned for all viruses and all reasonable precautions
have been taken to ensure that no viruses are present. Islington
Council cannot accept responsibility for any loss or damage arising from
the use of this email or attachments.
This e-mail is intended for the addressee only. If you have received it in
error, please contact the sender and delete the material from your
computer. Please be aware that information in this email may be
confidential, legally privileged and/or copyright protected.

Islington Council, Islington Borough Council

1 Attachment

 
 
 
Information request
Our reference: 3149861
Your reference: [FOI #971334 email] 

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

Dear Andrew Wilson
 
Thank you for your request for information received on 12 April 2023.
 
Please find attached our response to your request.
 
Yours faithfully
 
Community Wealth
Islington Council
Resources
3rd Floor, 7 Newington Barrow Way
Islington
N7 7EP 
Email: [email address]

Follow us on Twitter @IslingtonBC and @IslingtonLife

 
NOTE: Please do not edit the subject line when replying to this email.
 
Islington Council
This email contains proprietary confidential information some or all of
which may be legally privileged and/or subject to the provisions of
privacy legislation. It is intended solely for the addressee.
If you are not the intended recipient, an addressing or transmission error
has misdirected this e-mail; you must not use, disclose, copy, print or
disseminate the information contained within this e-mail. Please notify
the author immediately by replying to this email.
Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender,
except where the sender specifically states these to be the views of
Islington Council.
This email has been scanned for all viruses and all reasonable precautions
have been taken to ensure that no viruses are present. Islington
Council cannot accept responsibility for any loss or damage arising from
the use of this email or attachments.
This e-mail is intended for the addressee only. If you have received it in
error, please contact the sender and delete the material from your
computer. Please be aware that information in this email may be
confidential, legally privileged and/or copyright protected.

Dear Islington Council,
I wish to appeal the response from the Information Governance Team of May 12, and ask that it be reviewed.
My request specifically related to (a) "A feasibility study for the proposed Women's Building or Women's Centre" and "The Women's Building Joint Steering Group or steering committee," with specified date ranges.
However, the Information Governance Team has misunderstood the request, saying that "The request asks for all correspondence between council staff and various parties which relate to, or concern plans or proposals for the proposed Womens Centre [sic]." and therefore denying it as manifestly unreasonable.
Since my request is much narrower than construed above by the Team, please review the decision.
Yours sincerely,

Andrew Wilson

Islington Council, Islington Borough Council

 
 
 
Information request
Our reference: 3149861
Your reference: [FOI #971334 email] 

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

Dear Andrew Wilson
 
Thank you for your request for a review received on 12 May 2023. I am
sorry that you are dissatisfied with our attempts to handle your request
under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
 
I can confirm that we are considering your concerns and we will aim to
provide you with a response by 12 June 2023.
 
Yours faithfully
 
Information Governance Team
Islington Council
Resources
3rd Floor, 7 Newington Barrow Way
Islington
N7 7EP 
 
 
 
 
 
NOTE: Please do not edit the subject line when replying to this email.
 
Islington Council
This email contains proprietary confidential information some or all of
which may be legally privileged and/or subject to the provisions of
privacy legislation. It is intended solely for the addressee.
If you are not the intended recipient, an addressing or transmission error
has misdirected this e-mail; you must not use, disclose, copy, print or
disseminate the information contained within this e-mail. Please notify
the author immediately by replying to this email.
Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender,
except where the sender specifically states these to be the views of
Islington Council.
This email has been scanned for all viruses and all reasonable precautions
have been taken to ensure that no viruses are present. Islington
Council cannot accept responsibility for any loss or damage arising from
the use of this email or attachments.
This e-mail is intended for the addressee only. If you have received it in
error, please contact the sender and delete the material from your
computer. Please be aware that information in this email may be
confidential, legally privileged and/or copyright protected.

Islington Council, Islington Borough Council

 
 
 
Information request
Our reference: 3149861
Your reference: [FOI #971334 email] 

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

Dear Mr Wilson
 
Thank you for your internal review request to the council. 
 
You submitted a Freedom of Information Request to the council on
14/04/2023 and a response was provided for this request on 12/05/2023,
this was within the statutory time-frame. We apologise that you are not
satisfied with the councils' response.
 
You have made the following complaint: 
 
I wish to appeal the response from the Information Governance Team of May
12, and ask that it be reviewed.
My request specifically related to (a) "A feasibility study for the
proposed Women's Building or Women's Centre" and "The Women's Building
Joint Steering Group or steering committee," with specified date ranges.
However, the Information Governance Team has misunderstood the request,
saying that "The request asks for all correspondence between council staff
and various parties which relate to, or concern plans or proposals for the
proposed Womens Centre [sic]." and therefore denying it as manifestly
unreasonable.
Since my request is much narrower than construed above by the Team, please
review the decision.
 
I have now reviewed the response and I uphold your complaint. Your request
was misconstrued and is narrower then the parameters as stated in the
response, and for what was used as the basis for applying the exception.
In this case the threshold was not met in order for Regulation 12(4)b to
be applied. 
 
We have written to the service area involved and asked them to reissue you
with a new response. This will be provided to you within two weeks of the
date of this email.
 
If you are not content with the outcome of this Internal Review you have
the right to apply directly to the Information Commissioner's Office for a
further decision. The Information Commissioner can be contacted at:
 
Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
 
http://www.ico.gov.uk/complaints/freedon...
 
Helpline on 0303 123 1113
 
Yours faithfully
 
Shannon Davis
Information Governance Officer
Islington Council
Resources
3rd Floor, 7 Newington Barrow Way
Islington
N7 7EP 
 
NOTE: Please do not edit the subject line when replying to this email.
 
Islington Council
This email contains proprietary confidential information some or all of
which may be legally privileged and/or subject to the provisions of
privacy legislation. It is intended solely for the addressee.
If you are not the intended recipient, an addressing or transmission error
has misdirected this e-mail; you must not use, disclose, copy, print or
disseminate the information contained within this e-mail. Please notify
the author immediately by replying to this email.
Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender,
except where the sender specifically states these to be the views of
Islington Council.
This email has been scanned for all viruses and all reasonable precautions
have been taken to ensure that no viruses are present. Islington
Council cannot accept responsibility for any loss or damage arising from
the use of this email or attachments.
This e-mail is intended for the addressee only. If you have received it in
error, please contact the sender and delete the material from your
computer. Please be aware that information in this email may be
confidential, legally privileged and/or copyright protected.

Shannon Davis
Information Governance Officer

Dear Ms Davis,
Your email of 12 June upholding my complaint stated that "We have written to the service area involved and asked them to reissue you with a new response. This will be provided to you within two weeks of the
date of this email."
Today is 28 June, which is more than two weeks later. Can you tell me if a new response will be forthcoming? If not, I will follow up on your suggestion that I write to the Information Commissioner's Office.
I look forward to your reply,

Andrew Wilson

Islington Council, Islington Borough Council

2 Attachments

 
 
 
Information request
Our reference: 3149861
Your reference: [FOI #971334 email] 

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

Dear Mr Wilson
 
Please find attached the council revised response to your request.
 
Please accept my apologises for the delay in this reply.
Yours sincerely
 
Information Governance Team
Islington Council

Follow us on Twitter @IslingtonBC and @IslingtonLife

 
Islington Council
This email contains proprietary confidential information some or all of
which may be legally privileged and/or subject to the provisions of
privacy legislation. It is intended solely for the addressee.
If you are not the intended recipient, an addressing or transmission error
has misdirected this e-mail; you must not use, disclose, copy, print or
disseminate the information contained within this e-mail. Please notify
the author immediately by replying to this email.
Any views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender,
except where the sender specifically states these to be the views of
Islington Council.
This email has been scanned for all viruses and all reasonable precautions
have been taken to ensure that no viruses are present. Islington
Council cannot accept responsibility for any loss or damage arising from
the use of this email or attachments.
This e-mail is intended for the addressee only. If you have received it in
error, please contact the sender and delete the material from your
computer. Please be aware that information in this email may be
confidential, legally privileged and/or copyright protected.

Dear Islington Council,
Thank you for your response and disclosure of 29 August, following the intervention of the Information Commissioner’s Office.
As I was not satisfied with your disclosure, I again appealed to the ICO, which replied on 6 September instructing me to write to you directly about the information I believe is missing from the disclosure. The ICO also said it would ask you directly to revisit my request and to respond to me promptly.
Your disclosure provided only a small amount of redacted material, and stated that “further information is held by the council in regards to your request but has been excepted by virtue of 12 4 (e) which relates to "internal communications", Regulation 12 5 (e) which relates to information which attracts "commercial confidentiality" and Regulation 12 5 (f): disclosure would adversely affect the interests of the person or organisation who provided the information.” It summarizes with the argument that “the public interest lies in favour of upholding the exception.”
In its letter of 6 September, the ICO says its investigation will focus on whether the Council’s use of the cited exceptions is correct.

When I sent my original FOI request on 12 April, I asked for “all information including but not limited to emails, communications, reports and correspondence” concerning (a) the Women’s Building feasibility study since 1 August 2020 “including any mention of a steering group or or steering committee for the study, and any mention of a donation or funding for the study” and (b) the Women’s Building Joint Steering Group since 1 September 2022.
I expected that the Council would provide a range of material that might include, for example:
- Correspondence with Peabody (including the two Project Directors it has had since August 2020), the Community Plan For Holloway trustees and employees, members of the CP4H Women’s Building Working Group, and members of the public regarding: a feasibility study proposal by a named consultancy; discussions of the conditions under which the Council, Peabody and CP4H might participate in the study; a £10,000 donation for the study offered and subsequently withdrawn by an anonymous donor. None of this correspondence or supporting documents appear or are referred to in the redacted response.
- Memos or minutes about the setting up of the current Steering Group, including information about: the criteria for being invited to join the Group; its Terms of Reference; its members and their qualifications.
- Background information about the feasibility study currently under way. The disclosure includes a redacted email from Peabody on 20 March this year, with a Steering Group agenda item in which a consultancy called Inner Circle is scheduled to present how it will carry out the feasibility study. No information is included about what must have occurred previously such as the tender (if any) under which Inner Circle was hired, the value and term of the contract, and the work to be carried out.
- Minutes and supporting documents from the Steering Group meetings.

The disclosed material features several glaring gaps in time, including the entire year of 2022. Material related to the feasibility study is provided from 30 July 2020 to 1 August 2021, followed by a 19-month gap broken finally on 1 February 2023.
The disclosure does not list or refer in any way to the materials withheld, so it is impossible to know whether the exceptions were properly applied, or whether material could have been disclosed with further redactions.
For example, nothing has been provided regarding the Council’s communications with Peabody or principal architect AHMM regarding either the feasibility study or the Steering Group, despite the substantial amount of public money invested in the project (e.g. £39 million grant from London Mayor’s Office). The disclosure does not indicate whether this lack of information is justified by 12 4 (e) or (f), but it appears to be applying a blanket exception regarding information from or to Inner Circle, Peabody and AHMM.
Finally, disclosure argues that under 12 4 (e), on balance, the public interest is served by withholding information in order to protect “full and frank discussion” within and about the Steering Group, and that this outweighs the public’s interest in “understanding and participation in public debate of current issues” and “accountability and transparency in decision-making and functions.” Given that no internal information is provided, or even any indication of internal discussion or decisions made (e.g., re: the Feasibility Study tender), there is no way of knowing if this claim is valid.

As you know, my request is now approaching six months old. It is surely against the public interest for a simple request to drag out so long and continue to take up staff time.
I look forward to receiving the requested information.
Yours truly,

Andrew Wilson

Pearton, Brad, Islington Borough Council

Dear Mr Wilson

 

Thank you for your recent correspondence to the council in relation to FOI
3149861. I am currently working on a response, and should have this
prepared by 28 September. I will keep you updated should this date change.

 

Regards

 

 

Brad Pearton

Access to Information Manager

Information Governance Team

Resources

 

Email: [1][email address]

Tel: 020 7527 8586

 

Alternative contacts:

For Data Protection related matters: [2][email address]

For FOI related matters: [3][Islington Borough Council request email]

Website: [4]www.islington.gov.uk

 

 

Follow us on Twitter@IslingtonBC and @IslingtonLife

 

This e-mail is intended for the addressee only. If you have received it in
error, please contact the sender and delete the material from your
computer. Please be aware that information in this email may be
confidential, legally privileged and/or copyright protected.

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
2. mailto:[email address]
3. mailto:[Islington Borough Council request email]
4. http://www.islington.gov.uk/

Pearton, Brad, Islington Borough Council

2 Attachments

Dear Mr Wilson

 

Thank you for your recent correspondence to the council. Please see the
attached response.

 

Regards

 

 

Brad Pearton

Access to Information Manager

Information Governance Team

Resources

 

Email: [1][email address]

Tel: 020 7527 8586

 

Alternative contacts:

For Data Protection related matters: [2][email address]

For FOI related matters: [3][Islington Borough Council request email]

Website: [4]www.islington.gov.uk

 

 

Follow us on Twitter@IslingtonBC and @IslingtonLife

 

This e-mail is intended for the addressee only. If you have received it in
error, please contact the sender and delete the material from your
computer. Please be aware that information in this email may be
confidential, legally privileged and/or copyright protected.

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
2. mailto:[email address]
3. mailto:[Islington Borough Council request email]
4. http://www.islington.gov.uk/

[NOTE: This a copy of my email to Brad Pearton sent yesterday (Wed 22/11/2023 22:10). The conversation went offline from whatdotheyknow.com for several weeks, so I am posting this here to keep it publicly accessible. As advised by this website's prompts, I have deliberately redacted the personal name of the one LBI official I named in my original email.]
Dear Brad,
Thank you for your November 21 email and the redacted minutes/logs. Unfortunately, despite the ICO’s intervention leading to our cordial phone conversation and apparent agreement on November 2, your email reverses the progress that appeared to have been made.
1. You say you have redacted the minutes/logs “in accordance with Regulation 13 of the EIRs. To release this information would be in breach of the Data Protection Act 2018, which requires all processing of personal data to be fair and lawful.” However, your interpretation of the Act contradicts that of Steering Group co-chair J******. I understand that she finally supplied the same logs to some community groups last week at their request, but that the logs were completely unredacted.
Ironically, this is the same information J****** refused to disclose at a meeting on May 3. At that meeting I asked about the membership and qualifications of the Steering Group, and specifically whether people with “lived experience” (i.e. of imprisonment or employment in the criminal justice system) were represented on it. The answer was that there was a wide range of qualifications and backgrounds among the members, including someone with lived experience, but that no identities would be disclosed. I concurred that it was proper to protect someone whose past made them vulnerable, but questioned why the identities of other Group members couldn’t be shared. Despite this, no names or specific qualifications were disclosed at the meeting. Had LBI been forthcoming with this information in April, when CP4H first requested information about and membership on the Steering Group, I would not have launched my FOI request; had the information been provided at this meeting or in LBI’s first response to my request, I would not have been forced to appeal that response.
2. It is disturbing that the name of a person with lived experience, which I did not ask for, has now been disclosed by LBI, leaving him/her easily identifiable on the Internet and local press archives.
3. Disturbing in a different way is the fact that your email is the first public disclosure that the Feasibility Study contract was commissioned and paid by Peabody alone. Had LBI explained this at the May 3 meeting or in its first response to my FOI request in May, I would not have appealed that response. I would instead have asked Peabody directly about the tendering process.
4. Regarding our November 2 conversation, you state that “During this conversation, you [Andrew] clarified that you were not seeking the email correspondence the council had provided, and confirmed the data that would satisfy your request.” That is definitely not my recollection, and I certainly did not state that I was not seeking email correspondence. Nor did you state or ask anything like “Are we agreed that LBI does not have to provide emails?” Had you done so, I would have disagreed. In my second reply to you on November 2, I suggested some email trails that would help you to search for the requested information. You did not reply to suggest there had been a misapprehension on my part.
5. Your response was so surprising that it actually made me return to the spreadsheet you supplied on October 13. The spreadsheet confirmed that LBI indeed holds emails on a number of subjects I requested, but makes it clear the council sees no reason to disclose any of these emails, citing the applicable exclusions. It is impossible to know if the exclusions are correctly applied, or (more likely) whether redactions would have served to make the emails disclosable. I hope the ICO can take a view on that. I have pasted the spreadsheet under my signature below, highlighting the emails I wish to see, and which I would have mentioned during our conversation if I had understood your intention.
For the reasons listed above, and my exhaustion with LBI’s evasiveness since May, I do not believe there is any value in continuing our correspondence or in any further telephone conversations.
Instead, I hope that the ICO will make a ruling on LBI’s conduct on this matter.
Yours sincerely,
A.
PS On October 13, LBI provided the list of material that had been held back, citing the exceptions applied to justify non-disclosure. Based on the above issues, and other questions begged by the November 21 email copied below, I have no reason to believe that the exceptions have have necessarily been corrected applied. I have highlighted in blue the material that would illuminate the decisions made regarding the tender eventually won by Inner Circle. The yellow material should cast light on my request for information about “any mention of a steering group or steering committee for the study, and any mention of a donation or funding for the study, since 1 August 2020,” since I assume the matter was discussed in those emails.

Email Date | Summary of contents | Exception?
06-Apr-23 | Email from third party regarding participation in the steering group | r12(5)(e)
r12(3) and r 13
6-23 March 23 | Emails regarding the selection of the fundraiser for the Women's Building - sets out details of successful bidder following Peabody's procurement | r12(5)(e)
6-23 March 23 Emails regarding the selection of the fundraiser for the Women's Building - sets out details of successful bidder following Peabody's procurement r12(5)(e)
2-21 March 23 Email sets out scores of submissions and name of winning company. R12(5)(e)
2-16 Mar 23 This email includes a tender specification r12(5)(e)
r12(3) and r13
19 Feb - 16 Mar 23 Initial email is from an external group with notes from their meeting.
Subsequent internal emails regarding approach r12(5)(f)
r12(4)(e)
6 - 15 Mar 23 Email sets out scores of submissions and name of winning company. r12(5)(e)
2-13 Mar 23
Email includes some additional information regarding engagement groups r12(5)(e)
r12(5)(f)
r12(3) and r13
26-Aug-20 Email from Media team with proposed response to Tribune followed by internal emails agreeing response r12(4)(e)
03-Sep-20 Email from CP4H with proposal for feasibility study r12(5)(f)
10-18 Sep 20 Email from CP4H regarding working on project. Internal emails regarding response r12(3) and r13
r12(4)(e)
16-Dec-20 Emails regarding pre-meeting with Peabody. r12(4)(e)
16 Dec 20 - 5 Jan 21 Emails regarding pre-meeting with Peabody. r12(4)(e)
16 Dec 20 - 6 Jan 21 Emails regarding pre-meeting with Peabody. r12(4)(e)
9-10 June 21 Email from Peabody to council alerting them to activity by Reclaim Holloway group. R12(3) and r13
r12(5)(f)
15-Jul-21 Email with a briefing on the women's building. Includes the consultation report r12(4)(e)
11-Aug-21 Internal email outlining an agreed way forward. r12(4)(e)
6 Sep 22 - 13 Jun 23 Emails outlining amount of funding that will be contributed towards a feasibility study r12(4)(e)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Pearton, Brad <Brad.Pearton–@islington.gov.uk>
Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2023 3:57 PM
To: [email address]
Cc: ICO Casework <[email address]>
Subject: IR - Womens Building/Centre 3149861 / ICO Case Reference: IC-244411-S7Y3

Dear Mr Wilson

Firstly, I would like to thank you for your patience with this matter, as I appreciate that your original request was made in April this year, and this has still not been brought to a satisfactory close.
Thank you for taking the time to speak to me on 2 November, it was extremely helpful. During this conversation, you clarified that you were not seeking the email correspondence the council had provided, and confirmed the data that would satisfy your request. I must reiterate, that it is Peabody that are leading on this project, not the council. This means that the majority of the information is owned by Peabody and in some cases the council does not hold the information requested. Where the council holds relevant information we have sought Peabody’s views on disclosure. The council is not obliged to create information to satisfy requests for information where this is not held.

It should also be recognised that where stated in 2.1 of the Terms of Reference for the steering group “The purpose of the Joint Steering Group is to allow LBI and Peabody to work together “ and in Section 6.1, where you have stated that this indicates that the council LBI is the senior partner in the project, since the Council “must approve” key decisions, this does not mean that the council holds the information that you have requested, as this is Peabody’s project.

With regards to your comments that, during the time this request has been on-going, the council had not clarified that some of the information is not held, however, your original request was for correspondence in relation to the Women’s Building, rather than specific documents, therefore the council gathered the correspondence you had requested. It was only when we spoke that you clarified the information you were seeking.

As agreed on 2 November 2023, you have requested the following information:

• Minutes of any minutes from 1 August 2020 to April 2023
Apart from the minutes attached, from October 2022, minutes at the Steering Group are not taken, only action points are recorded, and I have attached these accordingly. Please note that these are from March to October 2023 as these are the only records available. Please note third party personal details including names of officers have been redacted from documents in accordance with Regulation 13 of the EIRs. To release this information would be in breach of the Data Protection Act 2018, which requires all processing of personal data to be fair and lawful.
For further information please see link to the EIRs guidance from the ICO
Guide to the Environmental Information Regulations | ICO
• Terms of reference
The terms of reference have been previously provided, but for the sake of completeness, I have attached this document to the response.
• A copy of the contract with “Inner Circle”
The council does not have a contract with Inner Circle. Inner Circle has a contract with Peabody and is not held by the council, nor is there any obligation for Peabody to share this contract with us.
• Public Tender Process – was this a public process?, if yes, provide details – and how does the tender process work.
As outlined above the contract is between Peabody and Inner Circle and therefore Peabody carried out the Tender process. I can confirm that the council does not hold the information requested and Peabody are not required to provide us with the information.
• When was the steering committee first announced and who is on it, and how was its membership decided
The council does not hold on record the date that the group was first announced.
• Who is funding the feasibility study
The feasibility study was funded by Peabody
• How was it decided that the group “Community Plan for Holloway” was excluded from the committee
The council does not hold any recorded information on this; however I can confirm that CP4H is not specifically excluded, it was agreed that the steering group membership would be individual experts in women and the criminal justice system and women’s issue. It would not be possible to represent all interested parties / groups and that we would do this through full engagement in the feasibility study.

I can assure you the council has done it’s upmost to provide you with the data you have requested and can confirm that no more other than what is attached to this email is held that falls into the scope of your request.

Regards
Brad

Brad Pearton
Access to Information Manager
Information Governance Team
Resources

Email: [email address]
Tel: 020 7527 8586

Alternative contacts:
For Data Protection related matters: [email address]
For FOI related matters: [email address]
Website: www.islington.gov.uk

Follow us on Twitter@IslingtonBC and @IslingtonLife

This e-mail is intended for the addressee only. If you have received it in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from your computer. Please be aware that information in this email may be confidential, legally privileged and/or copyright protected.

FOR THE PUBLIC RECORD: THIS IS MY LATEST COMMUNICATION ABOUT THIS MATTER, UPDATING THE CASE OFFICER AT THE ICO ABOUT THE STATUS OF THE FEASIBILITY STUDY AT THE END OF DECEMBER 2023.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [email address] <[email address]>
Sent: Friday, December 22, 2023 10:11 AM
To: 'icocasework' <[email address]>
Subject: RE: ICO Case Reference: IC-244411-S7Y3

Dear Ms Crook,
I imagine you will not see this until you return from leave on January 8. I am sad to say that the email below (all names redacted by me) confirms that Islington Council has successfully stonewalled my April 2023 FOI request past the point where any meaningful participation or corrective action can be taken.
The email notes that the community groups following the issue have been told that, “The feasibility study is with the council for approval, and it will be launched at an event on 24th January.” In other words, the Council has managed to avoid public scrutiny of the commissioning, design, and supervision of the feasibility study for over eight months.
I hope you will be able to provide your ruling about the Council’s conduct on this matter before then.
Many thanks,
Andrew

From: [email address]
Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2023 8:23 PM
To: [email address]
Subject: Re: (Women's Building Working Group) Women's Building Working Group 21st Dec 2023

HI all,

At the WBWG meeting we had an update from the joint steering group managing the process of setting up the women's space.

The feasibility study is with the council for approval, and it will be launched at an event on 24th January (this date is still TBC!) open to all stakeholders and interested groups and individuals.

There will be a further follow up event for people and organisations who want to bid to operate services in the space. Date TBC

Do people have any ideas for who should speak or what should be part of the feasibility study launch?

Actions agreed:

1. To ask for:
- a list of who has been invited so we can identify any gaps
- a summary of the feasibility study,
- for print outs to be available,
- can the meeting be made hybrid?
- plenty of time for questions,
- the feasibility study should be circulated in good time before the meeting to allow people to read it beforehand.

2. To ask a question at housing scrutiny in early January and by email to XXX XXXX: Previously we were told there would be a chance to make comments on the draft feasibility study, before its approved - is that still the case?

3. To find out what is involved in a deed of variation to alter the section 106. The s106 states that the space is for the exclusive use of women, but this could be altered and some people support this - its important there is proper discussion about this and a broad range of people involved rather than this decision being made behind closed doors.

4. To pressure for further consultation with women who have lived experience of using probation services around any potential inclusion of probation in the women's space

**** Update about Create London's heritage and legacy plans for the site - see their proposal above. Keep your eye out for meetings and workshops where you can get involved.

You can reply to this email or respond in Basecamp.

From: [email address] <[email address]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2023 12:04 PM
To: 'icocasework' <[email address]>
Subject: RE: ICO Case Reference: IC-244411-S7Y3

Thanks for your update.
All the best for Christmas and the holidays,
Andrew

From: icocasework <[email address]>
Sent: Monday, December 18, 2023 11:33 AM
To: Andrew Wilson <[email address]>
Subject: ICO Case Reference: IC-244411-S7Y3

18 December 2023

Case Reference: IC-244411-S7Y3

Dear Mr Wilson,

I am writing to update you on your case.
I am waiting for further information from the Council and my contact has now started his annual leave for Christmas, so I will unfortunately not receive what I need until the New Year.
I am on annual leave until 8 January and will pick up your case as a priority on my return.
Thank you for your patience and best wishes for the holidays.

Yours sincerely,

Bethan Crook
Lead Case Officer
Information Commissioner's Office

Information Commissioner’s Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire SK9 5AF

FOR THE PUBLIC RECORD:
The Information Commissioner has delivered a decision notice, attached.
I think the gist of the Commissioner’s thinking is summarized at the end on page 21:

*143. The Council has mishandled this request from the outset. The Council’s arguments in respect of the EIR exceptions are poor and the Commissioner is disappointed at the time it has taken to respond to the Commissioner’s investigation and the inadequate submissions provided.*

The Council is required to provide some information that it has withheld since I first made the FOI request last April. Some of its arguments against disclosure were accepted, some not.
I'll read this more carefully, but this is my initial understanding.

Andrew Wilson