Copies of the 18 'Reports' used as a basis for introducing the DCO on Perranporth Beach

The request was partially successful.

Dear Perranzabuloe Parish Council,

Under the Freedom of Information Act, I write to request copies of the 18 'Reports' that were used as a basis on which to introduce a DCO on Perranporth Beach.

Former Councillor Alan G Clark keeps mentioning 18 'Reports' that were part of the decision to impose the DCO. I thought at first that these must be official documents submitted by respected authorities in the dog care/control/rescue/behavioural fields. If that is the case, can you please send me copies of these documents, which - if published - should be available anyway in the public sphere.

Having read further postings on the Facebook site by Mr Clark, I now feel that the 18 'Reports' he is referring to are probably actually complaints against dogs, dog owners or about dog behaviour, made by residents or visitors.

I appreciate that under the Data Protection Act, you cannot release personal information to me about any complainants, and may I make it clear, please, that I am NOT requesting that information.

I request, please, the DATES on which the 'reports'/complaints were made, the DETAILS of the 'reports'/complaints and the name of the AUTHORITY or individual to whom these 'reports'/complaints were made.

Thanks for your assistance in this matter.

Yours faithfully,

Penny Bunn

Dear Perranzabuloe Parish Council,

By law, you should have responded to this request promptly and no later than 18th July 2012.

Can you please comply with legal requirements and provide me with the information I have requested as soon as possible.

Yours faithfully,

Penny Bunn

Perranzabuloe Parish Clerk, Perranzabuloe Parish Council

1 Attachment

Dear Penny Bunn

I do apologise for the delay in e-mailing the documents to you. Unfortunately due to illness I was not present at the meeting when your FOI request was discussed and misinterpreted the Minutes from the Meeting that a Councillor was forwarding this information on to you.

The Council have just purchased a scanner, so the documents have been scanned and I am attaching them to this e-mail for you.

Kind regards

Cathy

Cathy Oates (Mrs)
Clerk to Perranzabuloe Parish Council
Chyanhale
Ponsmere Valley
Perranporth
TR6 0DB

01872 572727

This email and any attachments to it may be confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Perranzabuloe Parish Council.
If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you must neither take any action based upon its contents, nor copy or show it to anyone.
Please contact the sender if you believe you have received this email in error.

show quoted sections

Dear Ms Oates,

I thank you for the information you have sent through to me (the Redacted statements and letters regarding the DCO on Perranporth beach).

However, I am disappointed to note that you have not (as requested) attached copies of reports from respected authorities, animal behaviourists, the police, RSPCA, etc, which might have been used to support the DCO proposal. I am assuming that, since the Council claims to have consulted Roger Mugford about the proposed ban, you must at least have documentation from him.

Can you please send all contributions from 'official' parties, and all evidence-based reports, through to me, as originally requested.

Many thanks.

Yours sincerely,

Penny Bunn

Dear Ms Oates,

I am writing to remind you that under the requirements of the law, you should by now have responded properly to my FOIA request.

I am therefore very concerned that I STILL have not received copies of the 'official' reports used when the Council decided to introduce the DCO, including a copy of the information provided by dog expert, Roger Mugford.

I did write to you about this the other day and now write to request an urgent response, so that I can close this enquiry.

If you do NOT have copies of this information, please let me know as soon as possible.

Yours faithfully,

Penny Bunn

Perranzabuloe Parish Clerk, Perranzabuloe Parish Council

Dear Penny Bunn

There are no 'official' reports to forward on. There is a report that the DCO Group produced, which I can scan to you if you would like? You will have to bear with me though, as I am on my own in the office at the moment and it is very busy.

Kind regards

Cathy

show quoted sections

Dear Cathy

Yes, please. I would be very grateful if you could please scan a copy of the DCO report and send it through as soon as possible.

I appreciate you are busy, but this FOIA Request is now well outside the time it was supposed to have been concluded by law. I was on the point of submitting a complaint to the Information Commissioner's Office, so I am very glad I picked up your response before I did so.

Obviously, though, I'd like to get this FOIA Request finished and done with as soon as possible.

Many thanks

Yours sincerely,

Penny Bunn

Perranzabuloe Parish Clerk, Perranzabuloe Parish Council

Dear Penny

I will do my best to get it to you tomorrow, my desk looks like it has had a paper explosion.

I will be completely honest with you and would prefer it if this e-mail remained confidential,[Personal information removed], hence the delay in responding.

Kind regards

Cathy

show quoted sections

Dear Cathy

[Reference to personal information removed]

I feel I should remind you, though, that when posting information to What Do They Know, you are publishing it on a public website which anybody can access. So, you might wish to remove your response to me (above) if you were hoping to keep this information private, as you say you wish to do.

With best wishes.

Yours sincerely,

Penny Bunn

Perranzabuloe Parish Clerk, Perranzabuloe Parish Council

1 Attachment

Dear Penny

 

Please find attached a copy of the report as requested.

 

Kind regards

 

Cathy

 

Cathy Oates (Mrs)

Clerk to Perranzabuloe Parish Council

Chyanhale

Ponsmere Valley

Perranporth

TR6 0DB

 

01872 572727

 

Mr Figg left an annotation ()

The authority refer to findings of a decade ago: Perranporth Planning for All event in 2002, stating that dog mess ranked 4th (highest of 36 concerns), call for a dog ban on the beach ranked 7th, request for dog walking area ranked 8th, more poop scoop bins 10th, dog free area12th. This data in to old to be of relevance besides which these issues have nothing to do with dogs on leads, the subject of the DCO.

The consultation responses against the DCO proposal outnumbered those in favour 10 to 1, this would appear to be an overwhelming mandate to me but obviously it doesn't fit the councils agenda as they chose to contact a 1% sample group of those against the proposal. Where is the data to back up the claims made about this? On the strength of this and the claim that non locals had responded to the public consultation ( this consultation was not only open to residents) they decided in favour of the proposal which I can only come to the conclusion that they appear to have had every intention of introducing regardless of the responses to the consultation.

If 10 people have been bitten or seriously attacked on Perranporth beach surely there must be evidence from the police to back this up?

As for the statement: "lt can be argued that dogs that are running free are, by definition out of proper control, which is a fundamental requirement on all dog owners in public spaces under the 1991 dangerous dogs act."

It can also be argued that police dogs are not out of control when running free, neither are sheep dogs, the council would be wise to correctly define the term of a dog being out of control if they intend to use it, especially if they intend bringing prosecutions.They refer to the the 1991 dangerous dogs act which deals with dogs dangerously out of control. As most dog owners will confirm dogs in general are more aggressive when on leads due to the fight or flight syndrome. Additionally owners are also legally obliged under animal welfare legislation to ensure that we satisfy the needs of their dogs, which includes adequate exercise, and to ensure they have the opportunity to display normal behavioral patterns.

Penny Bunn left an annotation ()

Thanks for your support, Mr Figg. I saw your FOIA requests elsewhere on this site and it's great to know there are a few of us trying to get to the truth behind these DCOs. Many thanks anyway, and very best wishes. Penny Bunn

Dear Cathy

Many thanks for sending that information through - much appreciated and I will now mark this FOIA request as complete.

Yours sincerely,

Penny Bunn

Perranzabuloe Parish Clerk, Perranzabuloe Parish Council

Dear Penny

 

Thank you for your e-mail which was discussed at the last Council meeting
held on Monday 13^th August. I am afraid the Council do not have
statistical figures from the hundreds of letters, e-mails and pro-forma’s
which were received. The only figures the Council has were included in the
report which I forwarded to you in my last e-mail. 

 

Kind regards

 

Cathy

 

Cathy Oates (Mrs)

Clerk to Perranzabuloe Parish Council

Chyanhale

Ponsmere Valley

Perranporth

TR6 0DB

 

01872 572727

 

Dear Mrs Oates

Thank-you for your reply to my FOIA Request.

I can't see how the Council can NOT have records of how many letters, emails and consultation responses it had. That cannot be correct. Decisions were made BASED ON that information (supposedly) and it must therefore be easily to hand in case FOIA requests are made.

For the moment, I will assume that the figures quoted in the working group's report are correct and will work on the information in that.

However, I am really concerned that this information is apparently not available when requested.

Could you please inform the Council members, by the way, that FOIA Requests must be responded to by law. Providing the information isn't optional, and Council members really shouldn't be deciding amongst themselves whether or not they WISH TO comply.

Many thanks for your help, anyway.

Yours sincerely,

Penny Bunn

Mr Figg left an annotation ()

I'm afraid I gave up on that facebook group Penny, having gotten sick of having my comments randomly deleted and it now appears to have been infiltrated by individuals openly posting spammy adverts and in favour of the ban, which is bizarre in a group called 'Against the Perranporth Beach Dog Restriction'

Dear Mrs Oates,

I am becoming increasingly concerned that this FOIA request REMAINS outstanding, despite several reminders sent to you on the subject.

The figures provided in the Working Group report you kindly sent me are NOT the actual figures for the number of respondents to the consultation. The term 'pro forma' has been used to refer to the 'Against the ban' representations, although I cannot see why this term was applied, since its meaning, whether in law, accounting, business or Government, seems inappropriate in this case.

I am presuming that the authors of the Working Group report meant 'pro forma' to mean that this was the number of objections received, once duplicates had been identified and weeded out. If that is the case, it is clear that the ACTUAL figures must be recorded somewhere at the Council, or the working group could never had had them at their disposal to work with.

Can you please either explain how it is that apparently, all the figures and evidence collected are now unavailable? And if you do not have an explanation, can you please provide the original figures, as requested in my FOIA request.

I remind you that you are legally obligated to provide the information I have requested, within the period set by law.

I really think the length of time this Request has been outstanding is completely unacceptable and it is high time the information I have requested (and which I am legally entitled to) is provided without further ado.

I look forward to your prompt response.

Yours sincerely,

Penny Bunn

Perranzabuloe Parish Clerk, Perranzabuloe Parish Council

Dear Ms Bunn

The Parish Council did not collate any numbers after the report was produced. The only statistical figures the Parish Council collated were in the report which you have received.

In light of the increasing number of FOI requests the Parish Council have had an internal review and are satisfied that the FOI requests have been dealt with correctly.

I am sorry I cannot be of further assistance.

Kind regards

Cathy

show quoted sections

Dear Mrs Oates,

You seem to misunderstand what I am asking you.

1. I would like, please, the ORIGINAL figures for the number of supporters and objectors to the DCO, BEFORE the working group put together their report. As you correctly state, these were collated by the council.
2. These numbers were then altered by the working group, who have used the term 'pro forma' in their report. Can you tell me, please, what the term 'pro forma' meant and why it was used in this instance?

Your response (above) does nothing to answer my queries and I am absolutely exasperated with this, now. All I'm asking for - perfectly reasonably, I feel - is the original figures. You MUST have these, since the working group used them as a base on which to fiddle their 'pro forma' figures when they wrote their report.

Can you please answer my queries?

Yours sincerely

Penny Bunn

Yours sincerely,

Penny Bunn

Penny Bunn left an annotation ()

This council is showing the perfect example of the arrogance that lies behind these DCOs. So full of themselves are they that they don't think they need to supply the original figures, which were subsequently 'adjusted' by the councillors involved in pushing through the illegal DCO. If I do not receive the information soon, I will be contacting the Information Commissioner's Office and requesting their intervention. I will also be informing them about worrying reports about some council members' reactions to those of us making DCOs, and the threats that have accompanied those reactions.

david webster,

Hi Penny.
I am councillor at Perranzabuloe and joined around the time of the DCO
discussions.
For the record I was against it and wrote to the the local papers and
spoke in public about it.
I would welcome the chance to have a phone conversation with you if that
is convenient.  You can friend me on Facebook or email.
Best wishes.
Dave

Dear Mrs Oates

I have returned from holiday to find that you continue to ignore this FOIA request, despite the fact that you are required by law to provide the information I have requested, within a specified time limit.

I am therefore now writing to the Information Commissioner's Office, to request his intervention in the matter.

Yours sincerely,

Penny Bunn

david webster,

We have complied with your request.

On 01/10/2012 12:31, "Penny Bunn"
<[FOI #119531 email]> wrote:

show quoted sections

Dear David Webster,

You have not complied with my request. I asked for the original number of objections the council received before the Working Group decided on a number to describe as 'pro forma'. The council must have these figures, or they couldn't have arrived at a 'pro forma' figure.

My request was perfectly straightforward and should have been easy enough to respond to.

Apart from anything else, simply ignoring a request when you don't want to respond to it breaches the FOIA Act and shows an extraordinary arrogance on the part of the council. This is the SECOND FOIA request that has gone over the legal time limit for a response, so it is clear to me that your council either has little or no regard for the legal requirements around these requests, or doesn't care to observe them. Either way, I think it is completely unacceptable.

I am pretty sure you are about to argue that this request originally asked for the 18 letters the council claimed to have which provided the foundation for the introduction of the DCO. You will argue - correctly - that this information has already been provided. Please note, however, that following receipt of this information, I put in a new FOIA request, which can also be found on this website, specifically requesting details of the original figures. For some reason, your Town Clerk chose to reply on THIS request form, not the one she was supposed to have used. I have cross-referenced the two in my letter to the Information Commissioner's Office, and am sure that if they are unclear on the points I have made to them, they will come back to me for clarification.

Yours sincerely,

Penny Bunn

david webster,

You stated
'Please note, however, that following receipt of this
information, I put in a new FOIA request, which can also be found
on this website, specifically requesting details of the original
figures.'

It seems from this statement that you accept that we have complied with
this instance of your FOI requests but not the second and yet your opening
comment stated that we had not complied with it.

If you agree then please close this request on the site from 'long
overdue'. If you don't agree I do apologise but I will be happy to talk
to the ICO to get some clarification on this too.

I will investigate your second FOI request.
Regards

On 04/10/2012 19:33, "Penny Bunn"
<[FOI #119531 email]> wrote:

show quoted sections

Dear David Webster,

I will not close it, no.

The error, in responding to the wrong request, lay with your Town Clerk, not with me. I am leaving the request as is and will consider this an additional grievance in my ICO request.

Yours sincerely,

Penny Bunn

Penny Bunn left an annotation ()

Please note that the second half of this Request is a response to a separate request, posted in July, specifically requesting the number of people who wrote to oppose the DCO on Perranporth Beach. The original request is available to view at: http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/dc...

david webster,

Fair enough. So should I treat these two requests as a single request?
Otherwise I am not sure what to do about this one given that I am looking
at the second request. What do I do with this request? Please advise how
you would like me to proceed.

Dave

On 05/10/2012 09:14, "Penny Bunn"
<[FOI #119531 email]> wrote:

show quoted sections

Dear David Webster,

If you spin back up through this request, you will see that the section about the 18 letters ended with a communication to me from Cathy Oates on 2nd August, and a response from me on 16th August saying I would now mark this request as closed. Which I think I DID, at the time, but then it was 'open' again when Ms Oates replied to my OTHER FOIA request on this thread. I've put annotations on both requests and have linked them in as best I can. The request for the original reports WAS late in its conclusion, but was resolved on 2nd/16th August. Everything after that refers to the OTHER request I submitted, requesting the original figures for the 'pro forma' figures quoted in the Working Group report Ms Oates sent me as part of the '18 Reports' request.

I hope that is clear. This is a very slow website, so I suggest if you want to view the other FOIA request alongside all the responses under THIS request, you try open the site twice.

Yours sincerely,

Penny Bunn

david webster,

Hi Penny.
Cathy is not in today and I only have a mailto: link to this request. But
lets see if I get this right.
I am looking at the document (redacted letters DCO 2010 19.pdf) on the
Facebook page - which are the 18 letters I think.
The other document we sent you is DCO Report - Perranporth report.pdf
which you also posted on Facebook.

Now in that second document it has numbers: 979 'against' and 21 'for'.
So if I add both your FOI requests together and treat it as one for
convenience then what figures do we still owe you? If its the numbers
during the consultation period I would need to sort and count them by date
range excluding the other letters mentioned in the report.
We have about 2,200 letters (its a stack 6" thick). Not all of them are
clearly against the DCO order as quite a few people were still confused
and thought it was a blanket ban. So each one will need to be read and
date sorted. I estimate about 45 seconds per letter to collate properly.
This would come above the 18 hours which we can allocate to the request
under the FOI. Put another way we would need to complete each letter in
less than 29 seconds to come up with an answer under the FOI allowance
with no breaks.

This would leave us several choices:
1. We could charge you for the time as allowed by the act.
2. We could refuse the second request because of cost as allowed by the
act.
3. We could provide you with an estimate based on a random sampling and
multiply the total by the ratio we find.
4. We could provided you with an estimate based on the total number and
the ratio above.

As you have been asking for this for a while I do not favour 1 or 2 but 3
might work with a 10% sample rate. Of course option 4 can be done with a
calculator right now.

Please advise if this would help.


On 05/10/2012 10:52, "Penny Bunn"
<[FOI #119531 email]> wrote:

show quoted sections

Dear David Webster,

If you look at the table in the Working Group report, under "Representation/letters via post/by hand" and then in the next column, "Representation emails
via website/email", you will see that the figures quoted are all "pro forma". Now, I don't think that "pro forma" was the correct term to use to indicate that this was the estimated number of responses after what the council claimed were 'duplicates' had been removed. The Working Group have concluded that the "pro forma" figure for the first column was 190 'pro forma' and for the second, 979 'pro forma'. My argument is that they cannot have arrived at these figures without having total figures to go on, in the first place. They MUST have had to look at the total number of responses they'd had, and record them. They MUST then have had to go through and take all the duplicates out in order to arrive at the 'pro forma' figures. Therefore, it follows that somewhere in the council computers or files, there MUST BE the original figures recorded before Alan Clark and chums pruned them to give these 'pro forma' figures.

If you are honestly telling me that actually, NOBODY has added them up properly before, then that makes the entire report invalid anyway, because the figures can only have been made up. You don't need to charge me to do the work that according to the report, has ALREADY been done. I really don't understand why this has caused SUCH a problem. They must be recorded, they just have to be.

Or IS IT the case that in fact, they were just plucked out of thin air?

Yours sincerely,

Penny Bunn

david webster,

I see.
The councillors who compiled that list and designation are no longer
serving however I think I understand what is going on here.
Pro forma may be the wrong term but it means that they came from the same
source or had the same format. Campaigners had put a standard format on
the website for people to use and customise as they wished. I think the
working group noticed that they were of the same structure and called them
by the name 'pro forma'.

I am unaware of any real attempt to remove duplicates so the numbers you
already received should be an accurate representation of the data on the
date that the working group compiled them. So the numbers on the document
you were sent include the standard format letters and the ad hoc ones.
These numbers were added up and presented to you earlier.

I understood that you were after something more than this, namely to look
at all the data or the data only during the consultation period. If I am
wrong about that assumption then the 979 number is probably right. The
point is the post bag continued to grow after the working groups
proposals. Eventually the number came to about 2,200.

I have made the offer to start a random sample on this data set which
should be statistically significant.
Do you want me to do this?

On 05/10/2012 15:06, "Penny Bunn"
<[FOI #119531 email]> wrote:

show quoted sections

Dear David Webster,

Thank-you for trying to clarify things. It all still seems very odd to me, though. I wonder why, for example, the 'pro forma' term was not applied to the letters and forms from those who supported the ban? I do very clearly recall that at the time, it was reported on the Facebook page that the council was trying to reduce the numbers 'against' by claiming that many were duplicates. It has always been clearly stated that this was done, so I'd be surprised if the Working Group simply quoted exact figures. I also think 'pro forma' was the wrong term to apply to these figures, and that its use has caused a lot of confusion.

I have to say, it seems to me that the best thing to do with this DCO is scrap it completely and do an HONEST one, this time. It is clear that at every turn, the councillors involved did all they could to manipulate the legal processes they were supposed to be following, in order to favour their own agenda. It is also plain as day to me that a lot could have been done to stop all this, or at LEAST make sure it was done legally and fairly, but other councillors who could perhaps have done something (contacted Defra, for example, if all else failed) chose not to do so. I therefore thank-you for your offer to reassess the number of responses you had, but I think this thing is far from over and - forgive me - I REALLY WOULD struggle to trust the word of anyone from Perranporth Council, other than Rory and Rebecca.

Thank-you so much for your explanation, although as you say, you cannot be sure that your assessment of the situation is correct and nor can I. I think it is pretty disgusting that this FOIA request has been left outstanding for so long, and that in itself needs attention from the Information Commissioner.

I will be asking Defra to investigate the rest of the matter. I do think that the actions of the councillors involved in introducing the DCO made a mockery of the Defra proceedings, of the Consultation Process itself, and of the right of UK citizens to have a say in the decisions taken by local councils that will directly affect them. I have been utterly appalled at what I have uncovered doing these Requests, and from my own investigations, and hope that the relevant authorities will conduct their own investigations and find out exactly what has gone on.

Your council is extremely foolish if it loses the vast number of dog-owning holidaymakers who previously flocked to your part of the country. I have met dozens of people - from around here AND from further afield, when I went to Yorkshire and Norfolk on holiday in recent weeks - who previously made the trek to Cornwall because they always had such fabulous holidays there with their dogs. Like me, so many people are now choosing to go to other places which are far nearer than Perranporth and where we are not discriminated against for the perfectly legal practice of owning a dog! If you really ARE one of the 'good guys' on your council, I suggest you impress on the others the damage to its reputation AND to the tourist industry this matter has already caused you and could potentially still cause you. I have been doing a lot of research into the persecution of dog owners that has spread like wildfire across the country, and Perranporth stands head and shoulders above all the others as being the most corrupt and cynical manipulation of the new DCO process. There is opportunity for the council to redeem themselves in the eyes of the public, by re-running the DCO and publicly stating they disapprove of the way the previous councillors handled things. Since both have resigned, the opportunity for a 'graceful retreat' and a re-run of the Consultation is very definitely there, and I hope the Council will take it. More than 1,200 people (and you say, even more afterwards) went to the time and trouble of registering their objections to the DCO. All of us CANNOT be dismissed by the ringleaders as 'confused'. To make such a claim is to be hideously rude and condescending about the intelligence of an entire group of people. The proposed DCO outline was published on the Facebook page, 'Against the Perranporth Beach Dog Ban' and its owners therefore cannot be held responsible for confusing people, or its supporters dismissed as 'confused'. It is particularly appalling that by contrast, 120 people who supported the ban have their representations accepted without question. Of the 18 'reports' that the DCO was based on (which the Working Group report claims were 'serious dog attacks'), ONE had been misfiled and was actually against the proposed ban and of the 17 remaining letters, fourteen of them were just rants about how much the writers hated dogs and didn't want to see them on beaches (or ANYWHERE, in one or two cases!) at all. Some of these people were clearly phobic about dogs and if any letters should have been ignored, it should surely have been those of the anti-dog extremists. Only four letters made any reference to any kind of incident involving a dog. One said a child had been knocked over (doesn't that happen when they are playing out at school?) and three referenced what were essentially NIPS by dogs in response to stupid behaviour on the part of the complainants themselves. NONE provided any kind of evidence, photographic or medical, because nobody was actually 'seriously attacked'. In a court, such stories count as 'hearsay' and don't count, since they can't be validated; anyone can sit down and write a letter claiming they've had a bad experience with something, if it suits their own agenda to do so. I think it is disgusting that the word of everyone who supported the ban is taken as Gospel, whilst the rest of us who were against it are dismissed as 'confused'. It is one hell of a way to run a consultation, if you'll forgive me for saying so, and it needs seriously investigating by the authorities involved.

Many thanks for TRYING to answer my queries, anyway - your assistance is appreciated.

Yours sincerely,

Penny Bunn

david webster,

Thanks for your reply. As the FOI officer on your case I apologise for
the delay and take some responsibility for it. I certainly was unfamiliar
with how it works but I am better equipped to help others now.
As this web site is intended only to broker FOI requests I think the DCO
topic per se is better discussed elsewhere. There are Facebook groups
that do a good job of that and it would be a shame to dilute the purpose
of this excellent web site.

I have been thinking about the statistical sampling and I think from a
mathematical perspective no new information could be gleaned from a
smaller sample size than we already have.
Can we close these two requests? Of course you may always issue other
requests at any time.

Regards.
Dave.

On 05/10/2012 18:15, "Penny Bunn"
<[FOI #119531 email]> wrote:

show quoted sections

Dear David Webster,

Thanks for your response.

I am still not happy about how these requests have been handled, but do appreciate your efforts to assist, even though you have been rather late in doing so.

Actually, much of what I said to you in my earlier response to you was relevant to the case; the Information Commissioner's Office is concerned with HOW information is dealt with and processed, as well as with whether or not FOIA requests are dealt with promptly. Therefore, I think that my comments regarding how the Consultation results were processed are very relevant to the ICO and I have detailed my specific concerns in my complaint to them.

Since I have complained to the Information Commissioner's Office about both of these requests, and since I know they will be examining the case, I am leaving the requests open for now. They will stand out more on any searches the ICO carries out on the site.

However, once I know that they are dealing with the case, I will close both requests, as you suggest.

Yours sincerely,

Penny Bunn

david webster,

I apologise for the delay in ensuring that your questions were answered in
a comprehensible way.
One thing that I have learned is that it is good to go the 'extra mile' to
put these replies into some context and explain any odd terms that could
cause confusion, such as the latin term 'pro-forma'.
However it now seems in retrospect that we did answer your questions
earlier - it's just that we did not go through it with you. Therefore
according to the act the date of compliance would be seen by the ICO to be
the date you were given the document. If we are contacted by the ICO
about this complaint then that is what I will have to tell them.
Given that there are no outstanding questions left to answer on the
requests I must close the requests on our side and inform
whatdotheyknow.com of that. I really have no choice as there is nothing
on these requests that is left for me to do.

But remember that the process is always open. The act is quite clear on
that so if there is another request then please make it.

Best Regards
Cllr Dave Webster,
Perranzabuloe Parish Council

On 06/10/2012 00:24, "Penny Bunn"
<[FOI #119531 email]> wrote:

show quoted sections

Dear David Webster,

I think the ICO will be dealing with MY complaint, David, not your version of events!

BOTH these FOIA requests have gone WELL OVER the date by which they should have been responded to. Despite SEVERAL reminders from me, neither clarification nor further information has been forthcoming from you until the point at which I wrote to notify you that I was contacting the ICO. As the FOIA officer for the Council, you should have been aware of my requests from the start and I suggest that - particularly since your Clerk says my requests have been discussed at Council meetings - you are very well aware that I have been hanging on for a response for weeks and weeks past the due date.

It is a legal requirement that you respond to FOIA requests within 28 days of receiving them. You have not managed to do that in either case, and when clarification of terms and the origin of the figures quoted in the Working Group report was requested, you just IGNORED my request! As far as I am concerned, you have deliberately ignored my requests for clarification and information and demonstrated no respect whatsoever for the legal requirements incumbent upon you in this situation. DO NOT now write some condescending response telling me you have replied when you haven't!

I am not closing this request because I want the ORIGINAL figures, please, that Alan Clark, Frances White and Tim Church had at their disposal when they wrote the report. The ones from which they deduced that they could put in a 'pro forma' figure. You must have these figures somewhere and if the term was just applied willy-nilly, I want to know WHY it does not also appear next to the figures of those who supported the DCO proposals.

Please do not try and cover up what your council has done. As far as I'm concerned, whatever your protestations may be vis a vis being against the DCO, you have not taken action to prevent the DCO being introduced on false pretences and it is a little late in the day to start now. I have been ignored, despite sending several reminders and warning notices to the Council, and you didn't start to fulfil your duties as FOIA Officer until I said I had gone to the Information Commissioner's Office with my complaint.

Since the complaint has been submitted, I am perfectly happy for them to pursue their own enquiries and for you to make whatever response you wish to make to them. I am sure they will be in touch with me also and I will provide them with my own evidence to help with the case.

Unless you are prepared to provide me with the information I have requested, I really cannot see the point in continuing to correspond on this website. The request cannot be closed by you, but can only be closed by the person making the request. I am leaving it open for the ICO Inspector's ease of reference and I wish you would just respect my decision to do so.

Yours sincerely,

Penny Bunn

Looking for an EU Authority?

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

AskTheEU.org