Copy of Draft Minutes

The request was partially successful.

Dear Powys Council,

At a Meeting of the Radnorshire Committee on 20/2/13 a Resolution was put to Committee to close the Moelfre City BOAT to Horse Drawn and Motor vehicles, but it would be open for two months each year for motorcycles.

The Minutes for this meeting are given on http://www.powys.gov.uk/min_2013-02-20rs...

This does not accurately record the Motion that was put to Members, nor the result of the vote as actually taken, at item 8.

These Minutes were not queried nor corrected at the subsequent Meeting on 20/3/13. It is understood these 'Approved' Minutes were subsequently tendered to the High Court. It is understood the Judgment states "The Council’s records unfortunately lack the clerk’s initial drafts of the relevant motions."

It is understood the Clerk records contemporaneous handwritten notes in a double sided, spiral bound, A4 notepad. These are then typed up as Draft Minutes and circulated to some Officers and some Members.

1. Please supply a copy of the precise handwritten wording recorded contemporaneously at the Meeting.

2. Please supply a copy of the Draft Minutes.

3. Has any Officer requested the Draft Minutes for this item be changed?

4. Were the Final Minutes changed in consequence to any such request?

5. What were the/any changes that were made?

If the release of this information, which we consider should be in the public domain, albeit acknowledging Draft Minutes may be subject to any appropriate corrections, is declined or refused, please explain why this is considered necessary, and also please review any such decision, such that the reply given is a final reply.

Yours faithfully,

Green Lane Association Ltd obo a member.

Jacqui Rees (CSP - Customer Services), Powys County Council

 
 
 

Cyfarwyddwr: Newid a Rheoli Gwybodaeth/
Llywodraethu Information Management
Director:  Change and Uned / Unit 29
Governance Ffordd Ddole / Ddole Road
Nick Philpott Llandrindod Wells
Powys LD1 6DF
If calling please ask for / Os yn galw gofynnwch am
 
Tel / Ffôn:  01597 827512      
Fax / Ffacs:  01597 825663     
Email/Llythyru electronig:
[Powys Council request email]     
Our ref / Ein cyf:  1807       
Date / Dyddiad:   30 January 2014

 
Person Dealing: Jacqui Rees
Direct Dial:            01597 82 7511
 
FREEDOM of INFORMATION ACT 2000
Reference No: 1807
 
Dear   Glass,
 
Thank you for your request for information, received at this office on
30/01/2014, in which you requested details of the following:
 
        **Draft Minutes of Radnorshire Committee**
 
The above is a summary of your request. The full details of the
information sought is provided to the officer to whom the request is
tasked.
 
Your request will now be considered and you will receive a response within
the statutory timescale of 20 working days as defined by the Act, subject
to the information not being exempt or containing a reference to a third
party. In some circumstances Powys County Council may be unable to achieve
this deadline. If this is likely you will be informed and given a revised
time-scale at the earliest opportunity.
 
There may be a fee payable for the retrieval, collation and provision of
the information you request. If this is the case you will be informed and
the 20 working day timescale will be suspended until we receive payment
from you. If you choose not to make a payment then your request will
remain unanswered.
 
Some requests may also require either full or partial transference to
another public authority in order to answer your query in the fullest
possible way. Again, you will be informed if this is the case.
 
The due date for responding to this request for information is 27/02/2014.
 
Should you need to discuss this further please contact the officer dealing
with your request as identified at the beginning of this letter or
Information Management on 01597 827512 / 7513.
 
I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your interest in
Powys County Council.
 
Yours sincerely,
 
 
Jacqui Rees
Records & Compliance Assistant

show quoted sections

Jacqui Rees (CSP - Customer Services), Powys County Council

 
 
 

Cyfarwyddwr: Newid a Rheoli Gwybodaeth/
Llywodraethu Information Management
Director:  Change and Uned / Unit 29
Governance Ffordd Ddole / Ddole Road
Nick Philpott Llandrindod Wells
Powys LD1 6DF
If calling please ask for / Os yn galw gofynnwch am
 
Tel / Ffôn:  01597 827512      
Fax / Ffacs:  01597 825663     
Email/Llythyru electronig:
[Powys Council request email]     
Our ref / Ein cyf:  1807       
Date / Dyddiad:   27 February 2014

 
Person Dealing: Jacqui Rees
Direct Dial:            01597 82 7511
 
FREEDOM of INFORMATION ACT 2000
Reference No: 1807
 
Dear  Glass,
 
Thank you for your request for information dated 30/01/2014 concerning
Draft Minutes of Radnorshire Committee.
 
This is to inform you that your request has been considered and I can
provide the following response:
 
I am unable, on this occasion, to provide the information you have
requested.
Section 17 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 requires the authority,
when refusing to provide information (because the information is exempt)
to provide you the applicant with a notice which:
states that fact;
specifies the exemption in question and
states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption
applies.
The exemption applicable to the information requested is Section 31(b) of
the Freedom of Information Act 2000; Section 31(b) applies where complying
with the request would prejudice the administration of justice.
In accordance with the Act, this letter represents a Refusal Notice for
this particular part of your request.
However, I can advise you that the Judge specifically stated in the High
Court:-
“Having considered the matter I have concluded that the minutes ultimately
produced must be treated as accurate. They reflect what the reports
proposed. Moreover, the February minutes were confirmed at the committee's
March meeting. At the March meeting an inaccuracy in relation to another
matter was identified but nothing was raised regarding the motions passed
on the byways. That suggests to me that if the councillors had thought
that the minutes in relation to the proposed orders were inaccurate they
would have said so.
 
I trust we have met your information requirements at this time. We believe
that this request is now complete and shall be closed immediately. Should
any further information be requested regarding this topic, a separate
request will need to be submitted.
 
I would like to this opportunity to thank you for your interest in Powys
County Council.
 
Yours sincerely,
 
 
Jacqui Rees
Records & Compliance Assistant
 
If you are dissatisfied with the service you have received in relation to
your request and wish to make a complaint, please contact Information
Management. Our complaints procedure is available on request or on our
website.
 
If you are still not satisfied following this, you can make an appeal to
the Information Commissioner, who is the statutory regulator. The
Information Commissioner can be contacted at:
 
Information Commissioner’s Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Telephone 01625 545 700
[1]www.informationcommissioner.org.uk
 

show quoted sections

References

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

Dear Powys Council,

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

I am writing to request an internal review of Powys Council's handling of my FOI request 'Copy of Draft Minutes'. I DID ASK THAT ANY REPLY WAS FINAL, IF THIS WAS NOT DONE PLEASE REVIEW URGENTLY. IF THIS HAS EXHAUSTED THE INTERNAL REVIEW/COMPLAINT PROCESS PLEASE CONFIRM.

Grounds

1) disclosure of the Radnorshire Committee DRAFT Minutes for 20/2/2013 was wrongfully refused by Powys,

2) Powys have not stated whether they hold the information,

3) that there was no reason to withhold disclosure,

4) that no Public Interest Test was performed, and

5) that no valid FoI Act Exemption section was provided, therefore not complying with Sect 17,

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,

GLASS

Freedom of Information Queries (CSP - Generic), Powys County Council

Dear Glass,

Thank you for your email requesting an internal review.

I have passed your request to the relevant officer, along with details of the original request (F2014-1807).

Powys County Council has 20 working days in which to respond to your request. You should, therefore, expect a response by 30 May 2014.

Yours sincerely,

Bronwyn Curnow
Records and Compliance

________________________________________
From: GLASS [[FOI #195302 email]]
Sent: 01 May 2014 10:28
To: Freedom of Information Queries (CSP - Generic)
Subject: Internal review of Freedom of Information request - Copy of Draft Minutes

Dear Powys Council,

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

I am writing to request an internal review of Powys Council's handling of my FOI request 'Copy of Draft Minutes'. I DID ASK THAT ANY REPLY WAS FINAL, IF THIS WAS NOT DONE PLEASE REVIEW URGENTLY. IF THIS HAS EXHAUSTED THE INTERNAL REVIEW/COMPLAINT PROCESS PLEASE CONFIRM.

Grounds

1) disclosure of the Radnorshire Committee DRAFT Minutes for 20/2/2013 was wrongfully refused by Powys,

2) Powys have not stated whether they hold the information,

3) that there was no reason to withhold disclosure,

4) that no Public Interest Test was performed, and

5) that no valid FoI Act Exemption section was provided, therefore not complying with Sect 17,

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,

GLASS

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[FOI #195302 email]

Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/offi...

If you find this service useful as an FOI officer, please ask your web manager to link to us from your organisation's FOI page.

show quoted sections

Helen Dolman (CSP - ICT), Powys County Council

Freedom of Information Act 2000

Request: F-2014-1807

 

Officer Dealing: Helen Dolman, Information Governance Manager

Direct Dial: 01597 826400

 

Date: 30^th May 2014

 

Dear GLASS

 

Further to your request for an internal review of Powys County Council’s
handling of your recent Freedom of Information request in relation to the
notes and draft minutes of the Radnorshire Committee meeting of 20^th
February 2014 please be advised that I have now concluded my investigation
into the Council’s handling of your request.

 

Having considered your information request, and guidance of the
Information Commissioner I find that whilst the refusal notice issued to
your request was correct in exempting disclosure on the basis of prejudice
to the administration of justice, it was incorrect in that the exemption
relied upon was section 31(1)(b), when in fact the correct exemption to
have been applied was section 31(1)(c), in addition the refusal notice
failed to inform you as to whether the information requested is held by
the Council, and why the Council feels that disclosure would prejudice the
administration of justice.

 

I would like to take this opportunity to apologise of behalf of the
Council for this failing.

 

Request

 

On the 30/01/14 you made a Freedom of Information request, the exact
wording detailed below.

At a Meeting of the Radnorshire Committee on 20/2/13 a Resolution was put
to Committee to close the Moelfre City BOAT to Horse Drawn and Motor
vehicles, but it would be open for two months each year for motorcycles.

 

The Minutes for this meeting are given on 
[1]http://www.powys.gov.uk/min_2013-02-20rs...

 

This does not accurately record the Motion that was put to Members, nor
the result of the vote as actually taken, at item 8.

 

These Minutes were not queried nor corrected at the subsequent Meeting on
20/3/13.  It is understood these 'Approved' Minutes were subsequently
tendered to the High Court. It is understood the Judgment states “The
Council’s records unfortunately lack the clerk’s initial drafts of the
relevant motions."

 

It is understood the Clerk records contemporaneous handwritten notes in a
double sided, spiral bound, A4 notepad. These are then typed up as Draft
Minutes and circulated to some Officers and some Members.

 

1.  Please supply a copy of the precise handwritten wording recorded
contemporaneously at the Meeting.

 

2.  Please supply a copy of the Draft Minutes.

 

3.  Has any Officer requested the Draft Minutes for this item be changed?

 

4.  Were the Final Minutes changed in consequence to any such request?

 

5. What were the/any changes that were made?

 

If the release of this information, which we consider should be in the
public domain, albeit acknowledging Draft Minutes may be subject to any
appropriate corrections, is declined or refused, please explain why this
is considered necessary, and also please review any such decision, such
that the reply given is a final reply.

 

Powys County Council issued a refusal notice on the 27^th February 2014.

 

I am unable, on this occasion, to provide the information you have
requested.

Section 17 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 requires the authority,
when refusing to provide information (because the information is exempt)
to provide you the applicant with a notice which:

o states that fact;
o specifies the exemption in question and
o states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption
applies.

The exemption applicable to the information requested is Section 31(b) of
the Freedom of Information Act 2000; Section 31(b) applies where complying
with the request would prejudice the administration of justice.

In accordance with the Act, this letter represents a Refusal Notice for
this particular part of your request.

 

However, I can advise you that the Judge specifically stated in the High
Court:-

“Having considered the matter I have concluded that the minutes ultimately
produced must be treated as accurate. They reflect what the reports
proposed. Moreover, the February minutes were confirmed at the committee's
March meeting. At the March meeting an inaccuracy in relation to another
matter was identified but nothing was raised regarding the motions passed
on the byways. That suggests to me that if the councillors had thought
that the minutes in relation to the proposed orders were inaccurate they
would have said so.

 

I trust we have met your information requirements at this time. We believe
that this request is now complete and shall be closed immediately. Should
any further information be requested regarding this topic, a separate
request will need to be submitted.

 

A request for an internal review was made 1^st May 2014.

 

I am writing to request an internal review of Powys Council's handling of
my FOI request 'Copy of Draft Minutes'. I DID ASK THAT ANY REPLY WAS
FINAL, IF THIS WAS NOT DONE PLEASE REVIEW URGENTLY. IF THIS HAS EXHAUSTED
THE INTERNAL REVIEW/COMPLAINT PROCESS PLEASE CONFIRM.

 

Grounds

 

1) disclosure of the Radnorshire Committee DRAFT Minutes for 20/2/2013 was
wrongfully refused by Powys,

 

2) Powys have not stated whether they hold the information,

 

3) that there was no reason to withhold disclosure,

 

4) that no Public Interest Test was performed, and

 

5) that no valid FoI Act Exemption section was provided, therefore not
complying with Sect 17,

 

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

 

 

Public Interest test

 

When considering the decision to apply a section 31(1)(c) exemption
against disclosure the Council must test the application of the exemption
against disclosure against the presumption of disclosure in the public
interest.

 

In the ICO’s guidance in respect of the public interest test, directs that
“The public interest here means the public good, not what is of interest
to the public, and not the private interests of the requester”

 

There is a strong public interest in the Council being open and
transparent in its dealings, however this has to be balanced with the
Council’s need to undertake some work away from public scrutiny and
interference.

 

Powys County Council is currently involved in a court case, in relation to
the byways referred to within section 8 of the minutes of the Radnorshire
Committee meeting of the 20^th February 2013.

 

Minutes of meetings are drafted from notes made by the Clerk, based upon
their understanding of discussions, events, and decisions of a meeting,
and it is the norm for drafts to be issued for further consideration by
those in attendance.

 

The case being brought against Powys County Council is only partly heard
in the Crown Court, and the High Court judgement made by Mr Justice
Cranston on the 3^rd October 2013 has already considered the matter of
perceived inaccuracies within the minutes and ruled accordingly.

 

Within the Mr Justice Cranston’s ruling paragraphs 17, and in particular
paragraphs 53 and 54 refer directly to these minutes and the drafting
process.

 

“At the hearing there was considerable debate about whether the minutes
accurately recorded what the committee decided.”

 

“Mr Marsden was at the meeting and has given his account as to what he
thought was decided”

 

“Having considered the matter I have concluded that the minutes ultimately
produced must be treated as accurate. They reflect what the reports
proposed. Moreover, the February minutes were confirmed at the committee's
March meeting. At the March meeting an inaccuracy in relation to another
matter was identified but nothing was raised regarding the motions passed
on the byways. That suggests to me that if the councillors had thought
that the minutes in relation to the proposed orders were inaccurate they
would have said so.”

 

Therefore in considering whether to disclose any information the Council
has to consider the impact that any disclosure would have on the ongoing
court case, and whether any disclosure could be used to disrupt
proceedings.

 

Over the past couple of years large numbers of information requests have
been made in respect of byways, and in particular relating to those
subject to the open court case, by yourselves and others involved in
bringing the case against Powys County Council.

 

Examination

 

In undertaking this internal review all relevant documents were examined
in order to ensure that the information request was fully considered.

 

However it was found that the double sided, spiral bound, A4 notepad to
which you specifically refer in your request is missing from the Officer’s
desk. Despite extensive searches this book has not been found.

 

This matter has been referred as an information security incident and is
currently under investigation in an attempt to establish how the book
could have gone missing.

 

The officer last remembers having the book in October 2013.

 

Legislation

 

Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 provides for general
right of access to information held by public authorities.

(1)Any person making a request for information to a public authority is
entitled—

(a)to be informed in writing by the public authority whether it holds
information of the description specified in the request, and

(b)if that is the case, to have that information communicated to him.

 

Section 31(1)(c) of the act refers to the exemption that was referred to
in the refusal notice, prejudice to the administration of justice.

(1)Information which is not exempt information by virtue of section 30 is
exempt information if its disclosure under this Act would, or would be
likely to, prejudice—

(c)the administration of justice,

 

ICO guidance in respect of Section 31(1)(c) advises that the
administration of justice is a broad term and as such applies to the
justice system as a whole. The exemption is designed to protect
information which is disclosed would undermine particular proceedings,
judicial bodies, and would allow for the interference with the execution
of process and orders in civil cases.

 

Section 17 of the Act refers to refusal notices

(1)A public authority which, in relation to any request for information,
is to any extent relying on a claim that any provision of Part II relating
to the duty to confirm or deny is relevant to the request or on a claim
that information is exempt information must, within the time for complying
with section 1(1), give the applicant a notice which—

(a)states that fact,

(b)specifies the exemption in question, and

(c)states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption
applies.

 

(3)A public authority which, in relation to any request for information,
is to any extent relying on a claim that subsection (1)(b) or (2)(b) of
section 2 applies must, either in the notice under subsection (1) or in a
separate notice given within such time as is reasonable in the
circumstances, state the reasons for claiming—

(a)that, in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in
maintaining the exclusion of the duty to confirm or deny outweighs the
public interest in disclosing whether the authority holds the information,
or

(b)that, in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in
maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the
information.

 

Findings

 

Since Powys County Council is no longer in known possession of the Clerk’s
note book, then it has to be considered information which is not recorded
by the Council, and as such cannot be disclosed under this freedom of
information request.

 

Therefore under section 1(a) of the Act please find this as notification
that the information requested in the first part of your information
request is not held by the Council, and as such cannot be considered for
disclosure.

 

Since it is the norm for notes of meetings to be developed into draft
minutes and those drafts to be submitted for further consideration and
comment by those present before ratification at subsequent meetings then
Powys County Council confirms holding a draft set of minutes, and comments
from those in attendance at the meeting.

 

The final set of minutes are available on the Powys County Council web
site and the initial information request makes reference to them. 
Corrections to these minutes are included within the minutes of the
subsequent meeting 20^th March 2014.

 

However in light of the public interest in ensuring that the Court case
against Powys County Council continues without disruption based upon
information developed as only part of a process Powys County Council
determines that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs
the public interest in disclosure.

 

Therefore please treat this as a formal notice of refusal to disclose that
information requested within the 2^nd to 5^th part of the request, under
section 17 of the act.

 

I trust we have met your requirements with a satisfactory explanation as
to our reasons for not disclosing the information requested.

 

Should you remain dissatisfied with the service you have received from
Powys County Council you can make an appeal to the Information
Commissioner, who is the statutory regulator. The Information Commissioner
can be contacted at:

 

Information Commissioner’s Office

Wycliffe House

Water Lane

Wilmslow

Cheshire

SK9 5AF

Telephone 01625 545 700

[3]www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk

 

 

Yours sincerely,

 

 

 

Helen Dolman

Information Governance Manager 

Cyngor Sir Powys County Council

Ffôn/Tel: 01597 826400

 

show quoted sections

References

Visible links
1. http://www.powys.gov.uk/min_2013-02-20rs...
2. https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/c...
3. blocked::http://www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk/
http://www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk/

Dear Helen Dolman (CSP - ICT),

This is a complete farce. When in a hole, it's surely best to stop digging it deeper. Several members have now asked for information about this. Also others including non members are coming forward with a lot of useful and interesting information. More would be welcome direct (or via a comments left here).

PUBLIC INTEREST TEST

It does seem very odd that the release of the draft Minutes is refused "on the basis of prejudice to the administration of justice", yet the case judgment has been quoted, the time limit to appeal must have long passed, so the case to which the Draft Minutes refer - the DEFECTIVE Decision of Radnorshire Committee of 20-02-2013 was, and IS quashed by the High Court.

Therefore as the case has reached conclusion, to claim it would prejudice proceedings does not appear a valid reason. This is of course now a matter for the ICO, if you continue to refuse to disclose the Draft Minutes. Clearly they are different, and it would appear it would BENEFIT the Administration of Justice if they were disclosed.

The Draft Minutes when released will confirm the Resolution put to Committee was precisely as claimed in the first paragraph of the 30/1/14 FOI request.

It seems the benefit in keeping the alterations secret are very much to benefit Powys Council, not the public good.

You write:-
"In the ICO’s guidance in respect of the public interest test, directs that
“The public interest here means the public good, not what is of interest
to the public, and not the private interests of the requester
-
There is a strong public interest in the Council being open and transparent in its dealings, however this has to be balanced with the
Council’s need to undertake some work away from public scrutiny and
interference.
-
Powys County Council is currently involved in a court case, in relation to
the byways referred to within section 8 of the minutes of the Radnorshire
Committee meeting of the 20th February 2013."

Again the accuracy of this has to be questioned. You write "Powys County Council is currently involved in a court case", but as indicated above the case resulting from the flawed Decision of 20-2-2013 has been settled. You must be referring to a different case, surely?

The Original Request started by stating "a Resolution
was put to Committee to close the Moelfre City BOAT to Horse Drawn
and Motor vehicles, but it would be open for two months each year
for motorcycles" That (or any other closure) is not currently a court case Powys is involved in. Therefore your reply is factually incorrect in this respect. (Please do advise if this is not so.)

With respect, you are being far from open when you say 'there is strong public interest in being open'. Publish the Draft Minutes, say why they were altered and by whom. Will you please provide all emails to and from the Clerk, Mr Shane Thomas, referring to changing the Minutes of 20-2-13, as requested in the information request point No. 3 on 30/1/14

It seems the "the Council’s need to undertake some work away from public scrutiny and interference." has taken precedence, not: "the presumption of disclosure in the public
interest."

MISSING CLERK'S NOTEBOOK

Another odd issue is you refuse the published Draft Minutes not to "prejudice to the administration of justice", yet this is not the reason given for not releasing the Clerk's Meeting Notes. If it "went missing" and if it contained such highly sensitive information as the actual Minutes he took, so confidential they can not be released in Draft form, should they have been left on a desk, not locked in a drawer? It appears to have 'gone missing' at the same time as the High Court case. Is this coincidence?

s31(b) and s31(1)(c)

A minor point by comparison, you apologised for referring to FOIA2000 s31(1)(b) rather than (c). But you did not. You referred to a non existent Section, 31(b) on the 27/2/14. Twice.

INCORRECT EVIDENCE GIVEN TO THE HIGH COURT

Finally by far the most serious issue is that it was claimed Powys County Council lied to the High Court. Powys (unsurprisingly) declined to make the Draft Minutes available to the High Court. The Judge commented on this. But took the 'Final' Minutes as being correct on the basis of what he was told. You then quote the Judgment as confirming the Final Minutes as correct. Garbage In, Garbage Out applies. But the Minutes had been altered from the Draft - for which there IS now evidence were accurate, and NOT the final Minutes, so all Mr Justice Cranston could rely on was what was presented to him, which was incorrect, as stated in the 3rd Para on the 30/1/14 FOI Question.

Mr Justice Cranston you plead states "Moreover, the February minutes were confirmed at the committee's March meeting." The Minutes approval was expected, the outcome was the acceptance of the main (flawed) Decision to Close to Horse Drawn and MPVs ("A part of the Council’s defence is that a TRO supercedes the statutory provision of the
maintenance of a highway and therefore any decision that goes against the proposal of this report will put that defence into jeopardy." in another (HA1980 s56) case, the issue of whether or not anyone recalled the actual Motion was to keep one open for 2 months to m/cs or not was minor, and there had been much debate on the issue, some of which was clearly in a long in-camera session.

Yours sincerely,

Green Lane ASSociation

Dear Helen Dolman (CSP - ICT),

Further information has already been provided. Apparently a FREEDOM of INFORMATION ACT 2000 request for information was made dated 21/10/2013 Reference No: F2013-1200, not via this site, nor to or on behalf of this organisation.

That request asked for:

1) The Radnorshire Committee Clerk or secretary's handwritten contemporaneous notes of the meeting of 20/02/2013

2) The draft minutes for this meeting as referred to in an e-mail of 22/02/2013.

After apologising for the delay in responding, FOI office replied:

"I am unable, on this occasion, to provide the information you have requested.

“Section 17 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 requires the authority, when refusing to provide information (because the information is exempt) to provide you the applicant with a notice which:
states that fact;
specifies the exemption in question and
states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies.

The exemption applicable to the information requested is Section 31(b) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000; Section 31(b) applies where complying with the request would prejudice the administration of justice.
In accordance with the Act, this letter represents a Refusal Notice for this particular part of your request."

Therefore on the 21/10/13 the "Radnorshire Committee Clerk or secretary's handwritten contemporaneous notes of the meeting of 20/02/2013" were not 'missing', but could not be released due to the same (non existent) s31(b), rather than the fact they had 'gone missing'.

So when precisely did they go missing?

It is clearly a Criminal Offence under s77(1) if any person "alters, defaces, blocks, erases, destroys or conceals any record held by the public authority, with the intention of preventing the disclosure by that authority of all, or any part, of the information to the communication of which the applicant would have been entitled"

(2) "Subsection (1) applies to the public authority and to any person who is employed by, is an officer of, or is subject to the direction of, the public authority."

In the light of this earlier request, why did it take a full 20 days to reply to F2014-1807, to provide in essence, the same information (including the admitted errors)as had (not) been prepared for F2013-1200? THE FOIA 2000 states replies should be made promptly. Therefore it appears the handling of neither request has complied with FOIA s10(1). "Subject to subsections (2) and (3), a public authority must comply with section 1(1) promptly and in any event not later than the twentieth working day following the date of receipt."

It also appears S1(1)(a) "to be informed in writing by the public authority whether it holds information of the description specified in the request," has not been complied with in request F2013-1200 nor F2014-1807.

Clearly there has been little if any attempt to comply with the spirit of FOIA2000, s16 "It shall be the duty of a public authority to provide advice and assistance, so far as it would be reasonable to expect the authority to do so, to persons who propose to make, or have made, requests for information to it."

Yours sincerely,

Green Lane ASSociation.

Dear Helen Dolman (CSP - ICT),

You write
"However it was found that the double sided, spiral bound, A4 notepad to
which you specifically refer in your request is missing from the Officer’s
desk. Despite extensive searches this book has not been found.

This matter has been referred as an information security incident and is
currently under investigation in an attempt to establish how the book
could have gone missing.
​​
The officer last remembers having the book in October 2013.​"​

Can you please be more specific about the date of the data loss, in particular, was it on, before of after the significant dates of 3/10/13, or on, before or after 21/10/13?

When was the 'information security incident' of this highly sensitive information 'strongly prejudicial to the public good', reported to the ICO?

Was there any A-V or sound recording in operation of the 20/2/13 meeting? (It is understood you may similarly claim it can not be released)

You remark Mr Justice Cranston in para 17 stated "They reflect what the reports proposed. . . . That suggests to me that . . . ". However it is alleged by Mr Marsden that Mr Brown twice said to the Radnorshire Committee on the 20/2/13 "the PTRO proposals are Mr Marsden's Appeal funders, LARA's, proposals not ones we would condone or support."

(Note: this claim of Mr Brown's is disputed by LARA. It was no doubt this contested proposal to Committee that was persuasive in convincing Committee to make the "LARA Order" (the four year TRO with seasonal closures), which was then modified (undemocratically), by Officers to FULL-TIME, subsequent to the Draft Minutes, and before the Final Minutes were tendered for Approval on 20/3/13. The release of the Draft Minutes, or the notes in the Clerk's 'missing' spiral A4 Notepad, or any emails between Officers and Clerk to change the Minutes will confirm.)

You continue "whether any disclosure could be used to disrupt proceedings.". When the truth finally outs, with the publication of the Draft Minutes, the 'proceedings' will doubtless be disrupted, dramatically.

What has been stated in the 'Review' is only Powys' view, as you comment "the Council’s need to undertake some work away from public scrutiny and​ ​interference.". No member of the Public was permitted to speak on 20/2/13, although that had been requested independently by two people.

We are hoping to acquire more information in the next 7 to 10 days such as the Draft Minutes and a transcription of the Resolution put to Members. After this we can make our findings of facts from our enquiries.

Yours sincerely,

GLASS

Dear Helen Dolman (CSP - ICT),

On 30/5/14 PCC writes (final paragraph under 'Public Interest test'):

"Over the past couple of years large numbers of information requests have been made in respect of byways, and in particular relating to those subject to the open court case, by yourselves and others involved in bringing the case against Powys County Council."

Firstly, would you please justify this allegation by quantifying statistically.
To assist, the total requests received by Powys by Calendar Year
Year,DPA,EIR,FOI
2005,18,19,259
2006,34,28,187
2007,24,27,198
2008,38,23,328
2009,38,70,394
2010,37,61,460
2011,47,110,604
2012,73,128,690
2013,32,93,655

Secondly, "in particular relating to those subject to the open court case, by yourselves and others involved in bringing the case" clearly appears to be in violation of ICO guidance that FOI requests are subject and applicant blind.

ICO Overview (PIT 5/3/13 v2)
"Arguments based on the requester’s identity or motives are generally irrelevant. " Therefore please explain the relevance of "yourselves and others", and "made in respect of byways, and in particular relating to ...."

Thirdly, what is the connection you make between "the open court case", and this request for a "Copy of Draft Minutes"?

Fourthly, It surely goes without saying, when a contentious issue arrises, an Authority that holds most of the evidence, would be inclined to decide what is 'useful' for promoting it's own agenda. Parliament observed the need for Open Government, so addressed this issue in 2000 with the FOIA.

Fifthly, Where there is a strong (or even plausible) suspicion of wrongdoing by the public Authority, this may create a public interest in disclosure. A disclosure you refuse, even on Review, under s31(1)(c). Therefore an increase in related information requests is to be expected. (Wind-farms are just one current example: E2014-2041, 2281, 2293, 2604 etc).

It is accepted there must be a plausible basis for the suspicion, even if it is not actually proven.

The content of the information is important in making this assessment. It may refute the suspicion, in which case there may be some public interest in disclosing the information in order to clear up misconceptions; or, it may indicate that the suspicion is justified (a so-called ‘smoking gun’).

There is a definite suspicion of: inaccurate information being supplied, evasion of the supply of requested information, information supplied selectively, incompetence or carelessness at the very least in an information security incident, incorrect conclusions drawn, changes made to Minutes to reflect a decision different to that actually taken, a Proposal credited incorrectly to a third party, then false statements being made to the High Court, followed by claims the Minutes were right because the High Court had accepted the changed Minutes, and had not been given the (essentially correct) draft Minutes. And even where this is not the case, there is a public interest in releasing information to provide a full picture.

There is also a suspicion of wrongdoing that an officer in seeking one outcome, who put forward a different proposal, more likely to find acceptance by Councillors, subsequently changing the Minutes back to reflect the outcome he originally desired, before their 'Approval' on 20/3/13.

It is observed similarities where the Police Ombudsman said of the PSNI "We cannot have a situation where those who are the subject of investigation will determine what information is given to those who are undertaking that investigation."

Yours sincerely,

GLASS

Helen Dolman (CSP - ICT), Powys County Council

Good afternoon GLASS

Please find this email as an acknowledgement of your emails 31st May 2014 at 11:54, 31st May 2014 at 17:23, 2nd June 2014 and 4th June 2014, hopefully I shall be able to furnish you with a response at the beginning of next week .i.e. week commencing the 9th June 2014.

Regards

Helen Dolman
Information Governance Manager 
Cyngor Sir Powys County Council
Ffôn/Tel: 01597 826400

show quoted sections

Dear Helen Dolman (CSP - ICT),

1. We are grateful for the confirmation of a response early w/c 9/6/14.

2. GLASS would like to thank all members as well as non-members, and other organisations, for the assistance and information provided, and legal assistance. In particular 'What Do They Know?' for the provision of this platform, where information can be disseminated effectively, thus reducing repeat requests and making the considerable efforts of Authorities in researching replies of greatest benefit.

3. We stated on 2/6/14 we hoped to provide a transcription shortly, and we hope to have the differences (at least) between the Draft and the Final Minutes of Item 8 of 20/2/13 early next week.

4. A request to speak briefly at the Committee meeting of 20/2/13 was emailed to the Chair Cllr. Tampin before the meeting. No approval was given. Another member of the public made a request to speak at the start of the meeting. This was unfortunately also refused. Had either of these gentlemen been able to speak, somewhere between £30,000 and £60,000 in the combined legal costs in the High Court paid by Powys, could have been avoided.

5. It is understood an Officer had an exploratory meeting with a representative of LARA in January 2013, which was expressly 'Without Prejudice' that was to be confidential and not discussed or disclosed.

6 A sheet from a LARA paper "cart road baseline standards" with the picture of an early motorcycle, and the printed excerpt:

"These motors, and indeed these pedal cycles, are ‘taking the cart road as
they find it’, always supposing that they find it in sufficient repair for carts. As
Lord Denning MR indicated in Haydon, the public would expect to find ruts
on cart roads, but not ruts so deep as to impede passage."

was used by the Officer to write notes on, with Roman numerals:-

"(i) Endorsed PTRO for WBiN at South part with 4 year review, at most to explore options.
(ii) Seasonal TRO on CR127 & MC. ? limit 4x4 use, allow M/C. (weather dependent)
(iii) Volunteers working on ......"

7. At the 20/2/13 Committee Meeting this A4 sheet of paper with the notes, WRITTEN BY the Officer from the confidential meeting was referred to in open session.

8. It was PURPORTED to be "from LARA" and was 'not our idea or suggestion'. Another Officer commented to Committee to the effect 'I don't know if we can stop motorcycles using it when it is raining'

9. This was then the basis for a slight modification to the Report-Proposed Resolution put to Committee and voted upon, and the "considerable debate" in the High Court detailed in the Judgment Para 53.

10. Evidence Powys had as early as 11/6/13 stating the ACTUAL Resolution put to Radnorshire Committee, and which they RESOLVED to make was:

"That the full length of WBIN be subject to a traffic regulation order for 4 years (following which Powys CC would consider what to do)."

"That the full length of Moelfre City be subject to a traffic regulation order prohibiting four-wheeled vehicles at all times but that it would be open to two-wheeled vehicles for two months in every year."

11 Emails within days of the committee Meeting between Officers and involving the Clerk, secured that the minutes of the meeting were changed with the original draft minutes recording the resolutions made exactly as alleged in the FOI of 30/1/14 and to accord with the confidential without prejudice Notes, made by an Officer that were purported to Committee to have come from LARA as in (6) above, and precisely as the actual Resolution put to Committee in (10) above.

12. The Final Minutes do not show the Resolution put to Committee and voted on to accept (with one abstention). This is not what the Legal Order Sealed on the 9/5/13 states.

13. If the transcription substantially confirms the above, this will look very bleak for the integrity of Powys. If the Draft Minutes (as is expected) confirm this, it will look much bleaker still.

14. It is therefore exceptionally baffling why Powys did not produce the Draft Minutes, and the Clerk's contemporaneous notepad to the Court. It would have verified their claim. It would have ended the matter there.

15. You admit "At the hearing there was considerable debate about whether the minutes accurately recorded what the committee decided.” Even the Judgment specifically states "The Council’s records unfortunately lack the clerk’s initial drafts of the relevant motions."

16. After this "considerable debate" Powys still did not even take and save securely a record of the clerk’s initial drafts of the relevant motions." for example in case of any Appeal by either side. PCC have consistently suppressed these Draft Minutes and the Notepad since October 2013. The month coincidently the Clerk 'last remembered having had the book.'

17. PCC on 29/11/13 in reply F2013-1200 fails to even state whether or not they hold the Draft Minutes or the Clerks's handwritten contemporaneous notes (which they have a duty to do). PCC also refuse to release the Draft typed Minutes and the handwritten Notepad Minutes.

PCC do not state why the exemption claimed applies - s17(c). It clearly 'is not apparent'.

n.b. PCC do not claim the notepad is missing at this time. If PCC did not know or be bothered to find out if they were in possession of the notepad, how could they have properly carried out the Public Interest Test?

PCC on 27/2/14 fail to state whether or not they hold the Draft Minutes or the Notepad (which they have a duty to do).

PCC on 27/2/14 refuse to release the Draft typed Minutes and the handwritten Notepad Minutes.

PCC again claim it 'would prejudice the administration of justice' (which is merely quoting what is in the Act) but still fail to explain why (which they have a duty to do if not apparent).

PCC on 30/5/14 again Refuse to release the Draft Minutes, but now, for the first time, claim the Notepad is 'missing', "The officer last remembers having the book in October 2013."

This is not even specious. We hope the reply early w/c 9/6/14 will be full and honest.

Yours sincerely,

GLASS

Dear Helen Dolman (CSP - ICT),

Further comments have been received to assist GLASS with the 'Refusal Notice' from PCC's failure to supply the Draft Minutes for 20/2/13.

1) The National Rights of Way Officer for the Trail Riders Fellowship apparently wrote several days before the meeting asking to address Committee. This was declined.

2) An individual user of footpaths, bridleways with horses and cycling, and on byways, at times as carer and companion of a disabled close family member, was also the s56 Applicant, living locally to WBiN, and who also represents GLASS in the area, wrote by email on 19/2/13 asking to speak to Committee (but did not receive a reply):

"Dear Cllr Tampin,

I have discovered Committee have a Recommendation to reverse their Decision of 19/12/2012 on the Permanent TROs on Agenda Item 8, to alter the status quo.

This seems in direct contravention of the Email from Mr Brown of 19/12/12 stating:

"The Committee have agreed to postpone their determination pending the conclusion of the appeal, whether that occurs by compromise or by judicial ruling."

This would be bad faith, make the proposed Consent Order impossible, the suggested cost compromise void, an expensive Judicial Review of the legitimacy of the TRO highly probable, and further legal action on Powys reneging on the 2005 binding Agreement (below), signed by Paul Griffiths an Authorised Office of the Council, and other matters at the moment sub judice.

May I please make a Statement to Committee before this Item is determined?

Yours sincerely,

XXXX"

Other notes were appended including:

"Virtually nothing has been spent on repairs on any of them over the past 10 years.
Each Temporary Restriction Order, according to Powys' own web site, actually costs £750. There has been a minimum of 17 each on WBiN and MC, and 12 on CR127, that is at least £35,000.
LARA groups have offered to repair MC, with volunteers, and to fund entirely. Powys estimated £56,000
Powys has estimated WBiN to cost £109,484. A highways contractor has quoted less than 10% of this to meet the legal 'objective standard'.

There will be a challenge additionally, that the Magistrates saw only 15% of the highways claimed in disrepair, and they used SIX private roads to see the three BOATs, (as determined by Powys), due to the BOATs being impassable. Eight of the major disrepairs were not seen by the Magistrates at all, they saw only 4.

Dramatically on CR127, there is NO closure, 3 private roads were used for access for the site visit, only one minor flooded gate was seen, PCCs barrister admitted it was "Not in Apple-Pie Order", the lay Magistrates concluded in their Decision "We accept that CR127 is not in a state of satisfactory repair as far as vehicular traffic is concerned and that there is no TRO,.....". "

3) As no reply was received, a further request was made at the start of the meeting. The Chair deferred the decision whether to allow Committee to be addressed, until the legal advice had been given, in-camera, by the same two Officers pursuing the litigation through the Courts. The significance was that what is understood to be a quasi judicial process was being advised to the 'Decision Makers' (who are supposed to declare any Prejudicial Interest), by just one party to the ongoing, open, Crown Court case, but declined to give any balancing audience at all to the other side. This unfortunately led to extremely expensive, and avoidable consequences in the adverse High Court Costs against PCC (that were predicted in the 19/2/13 email to Cllr Tampin, the then Chair).

4) The intention was simply to draw the Committee's attention to the flaws in the wording of the fourth paragraph of the Conclusion to the 2012-12-19 reports. (This is similar or identical to the wording in the 20/2/13 Reports)

http://www.powys.gov.uk/rep_2012-12-19rs...

This Report states:

"Conclusion

It is the duty of the Council to maintain all highways, but has put in place a strategy to prioritise resources on the basis of sustainability. This does not mean that the Council will not maintain this highway, but should put in place a permanent TRO whilst works can proceed in accordance with the strategy and until such time this byway should become a priority.

The proposal is to permanently suspend the rights for horse-drawn and motorised vehicles throughout the year.

At present the Council has been taken to court, under s.56 Highways Act 1980 to put a highway into repair. At present this is in the crown court on appeal from the magistrates’ court.

A part of the Council’s defence is that a TRO supercedes the statutory provision of the maintenance of a highway and therefore any decision that goes against the proposal of this report will put that defence into jeopardy. "

"Person(s) To Implement Decision: Mark Stafford-Tolley"

It was noted Mr Stafford-Tolley DID address the Committee, however. And at length.

It was noted Mr Justice Cranston observed (Para 44) "The statements of reasons would not win any prizes for draftsmanship or grammar".

Do Committee/Cabinet have complete faith in the documentation provided? (Cllr Lewis, and Cllr Price in particular, seemed to have had reservations on 20/2/13)

5)
a) It is acknowledged the Report Proposal DOES say "permanently suspend the rights for horse-drawn and motorised vehicles throughout the year".

b) But this is NOT what the handwritten Notes Mr Brown purported to have come from LARA, state.

c) It is NOT the Resolution actually put to Committee, as is confirmed by the transcription.

d) They are NOT what is understood to be in the (refused) Draft Minutes, ergo not in the Clerk's 'Missing Notebook' either,

e) but it IS what was put back into the altered Final Minutes,

f) it IS what PCC incorrectly claimed in the Cardiff High Court WAS the Resolution,

g) it IS what PCC still claim even on 30/5/14, is 'correct' in their Review of the FOI request as made on 30/1/14.

6) A Transcription of the short (<10min) committee debate in open session following the long in-camera session for Item 8, has now been obtained, and will be posted here shortly.

7) It is therefore requested these Draft Minutes, requested well over 4 months ago, are released as soon as possible. Or give a proper s17(1)(c) reason, such as 'Disclosure might Disrupt a Criminal investigation into Perjury', for example.

8) As another contributor pointed out to us, Powys' reason to refuse disclosure is derisory: What does Powys County Council mean by "disrupt proceedings"?

"If both sides are represented by Barristers, instructed by Solicitors, and all admissible evidence is considered by the Judge, and two justices, open to challenge by 'the other side's barrister, this "disruption based upon information" is simply not tenable, to prevent full disclosure of what is obviously highly relevant evidence, of great public interest."

"The Information Commissioner is of the view that there is a considerable public interest in the public being assured that justice is done."

Yours sincerely,

GLASS

Transcription of 'A MEETING OF THE RADNORSHIRE COMMITTEE HELD AT POWYS COUNTY HALL, LLANDRINDOD WELLS ON WEDNESDAY 20TH FEBRUARY 2013

Present: County Councillor K. Tampin (Chairman)

County Councillors K. Curry, C. Davies, D. O. Evans, J. Evans, E. M. Jones, H. Lewis, Mrs. M. Mackenzie, P. Medlicott, W. J. Powell, G. Price and T. Turner.

In attendance:
Councillor G. Brown - Cabinet Portfolio Holder for Planning,
Janet Kealey – Head of Legal , Scrutiny and Democratic Services,
Mike Green – Procurement and Business Manager,
Rob Brown (RB) – Solicitor,
Stuart Mackintosh – Senior Manager Countryside and Contracted Services,
Mark Stafford-Tolley (MST) – Countryside Access Officer and
Shane Thomas – Clerk.

3. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Councillors H. Williams and E. M. Jones declared an interest in relation to item 8 on the agenda ‘by-way closures’.

Item 8. BY-WAY CLOSURES – MOELFRE CITY/WATER BREAK IT'S NECK

Members were reminded that decisions in relation to Traffic Regulation Orders had been delegated to shire committees. At this juncture, and on the advice of the Monitoring Officer, the Committee

RESOLVED to exclude the public for the following items of business on the grounds that there would be disclosure to them of exempt information under category 5 of The Local Authorities (Access to Information) (Variation) (Wales) Order 2007).

Having considered the position and receiving legal advice the Committee went back into open session after approximately 35 minutes:-

0.00 minutes
Public invited to re-enter Committee room.
Door Opened.
General chatter

Chair: Welcome to the Radnorshire Committee Mr Marsden
I have your email and you asked to speak.
I am not going to allow that I'm afraid as we are the Radnorshire Committee and we are dealing with a Traffic Regulation Order.

1.00
Chair, Yes I believe Cllr Lewis....

Cllr Lewis:
Just clarify, you know, what the steep slope wants doing to make it fit to be drivable?

MST:
Yes I did see the bit you refer to. This proposal is to drain the ditches, get the water off, and to dig out the middle of the, what is there at the moment and put inside what is scarring that has occurred in rutting and ....

Cllr Lewis: No. No, No your not within the same place.

MST:
I'm not the same place? Oh! The same actually. I mean there's not much too much we can do, not looking to do much apart from grade, grade, grade the bottom of that steep slope, with some extra stones and grade what is there to try to get the water off the side coming down the hill.

2.00
Cllr. Lewis:
No I still don't think we are on the same track actually. It goes across the middle of the steep slope.

MST Steep? Er, 'the bog'. Oh Sorry. Sorry there. Um right Um. I see what you say.

Cllr Lewis: No this is a very step one.

MST: Oh Sorry, yes there.

Cllr Lewis: This is the very steep one

MST:
Yea, yea, sorry. When you go up in the bog there is a shelf, is is not particularly wide.
If it is to be reinstated to allow all wheel drive traffic you need gabions, civil engineering work to stabilise the bank, make sure and then in terms of cost that would be, for civil engineering work cost goes on forever, literally. (mumbles) absolutely.

But as a bridleway then then there would be no work needed. Only need to culvert and to do some sort of work down the bottom

3.00
Cllr Medlicatt
I take it there's local traffic use it, farmers do they, and tractors and things use it, I take it they will still be allowed to use it? There wont be any problem with that?

Yes they can still use it

RB In respect of private rights of way they will be able to use

Cllr Medlicott:
They will be able to use it. They are still preserved?
RB: Yes.

Cllr Medlicott:
Thanks very much Chair that's all it was.

Cllr Price:
In the case of Traffic Regulation Orders There have been a number of temporary TROs on the routes, when we apply a temporary TRO do we have to notify the Welsh Government, and if so, what is their view on the number of temporary TROs we've inflicted?
The second point I wanted to mention is: Within the Report there are two figures for, or two estimates have been given by the internal department for the repair of routes, have we been and got quotes externally?
And if so how do they compare to the figures we've got have on our own communicators?

4:00
MST: Er yes thank you. Um, The, the Execution of a Traffic Regulation Order does not need consent of the Welsh Government, the only time the Welsh Government would need to have consent is for the extension of a existing Order. Any extension of Order have had Welsh Government approval.
The current is in place until the 27th of March of this year. At this time, there is, er this is an Order that we have made in our own behest

Your Second Question the costs that was put to you in the Report was taken from our civil engineer who surveyed the routes, actually he is a member of the Builth Wells motorcycle club he is a trail bike rider himself, he is a civil engineer, he has an understanding of the kind of work outside the green thing, he's a professional not some sort of arbitrary work, he knows it has to be compatible with the surroundings.
5.00
Those are the costing that we had and we are using the amber green um red classification that's synonymous with what we have been working on with Cambrian Mountains project.
we haven't gone externally to get a report (mumbles) we have only used internally.

Cllr Price:
Just one quick supplementary point if I can.
I'm particularly keen about Temporary TROs, and notification of the Assembly Government and vice versa.
I would imagine there has been some, correspondence between the RoW department, our legal department and maybe the Welsh Assembly Government on the TROs

6.00
From what I can understand from reading things on the Assembly Government web site is that they look at local Authorities for maintaining these routes.

In may be only my interpretation, but they don't look on the constant use of temporary TROs, and the conclusion that I have made from this particular case is that to possible ask for another temporary TRO won't look at it favourably, and that's why we have gone for a permanent TRO.

But that's still as far as I'm concerned doesn't relinquish us from our responsibility to maintain them, So um

I'll leave it there, as I said before I don't think I am 100% comfortable in making my decison along the lines of what we have got here and because I don't think I've had enough information

7.00
RB: In respect of the Permanent TRO that is a proposal put forward by the Land Access and Recreation Authorit.... er Association and who are funding Mr Marsden's appeal

The Permanent TRO er proposal and the format er is er ... it is not something we are in ... er endorse or promoting, it was put forward by LARA as apart of the (mumbled) settlement.

MST: The implementation of Traffic Regulation Orders is um is is quite accepted indeed completely by DEFRA guidance and thats supported by the Motoring Access Strategy, that reinforces that message of downgrading. These are questions of managing RoW and not of not maintaining um neglecting the highways that is within our responsibility
So there has to be a balance in terms of making TROs and maintenance within policy and within prioritisation that we approve as County Council

8.00
The costing part on a, er on the best case scenario whereby £110,000 on the Water Break It's neck as an example, is to maintain it to 4 wheel drive traffic, er it does not include the annual maintenance costs thereof, but within, we, I do, I do er sit down with Byway User Groups from time to time, there is one due in the next month or so. And with the with the strategy only being approved in March last year, therefore the intention is to say to user groups, er 'look it is going to cost £110,00 thousand pound for 4 wheel drive traffic, what do you think about seasonal closure, what do you think about (mumble) this and things like this?'

and in terms of green amber red routes we are looking to make sure that green routes are kept in a good standard because
one, they are sustainable, so they can be kept up to standard within, within monetary terms

9.00
And of course in stable terms
and other factors that are in the Strategy that, that support a lot of factors to it
such as private access
whether the road is on the recommended route
such as Glyndwr's way as a promoted trail
or part of a circular trail (mumbles)
all these factors combine to determine whether there should be permanent Traffic Regulation Order on it, or should prioritised for work.

Anyone else? (pause) No more questions? (pause)

Cllr M Jones:
What is the recommendation? Can you explain that exactly, what are we asked to vote for?

RB:
The recommendation as endorsed by LARA is that a Permanent TRO be granted for Water Break It's Neck and CR127, and in particular on Water Break It's Neck there, is a 4 year cut off point prohibiting all Motor Vehicles, er, all motor vehicles during that time, whereupon we will then undertake um look at all our options if it's permanent at the end of the day we shall at that time.

10.00
In respect of CR127 Er Moelfre City sorry, there will be a, er, we propose a um Seasonal TRO to allow motorcycles again to prevent vehicular use during er, or except on, er during a certain period when motorcycles will be allowed.

Chair: Now are you clear? Are we are going to take these two together or separately?
Yes.

11.00
Can I just add here for the clarity of Mr Marsden despite this proposals by those funding the appeal of Mr Marsden that is the position on the permanent TROs.

Chair: Right Shall we take Water Break It's Neck first first.

GLASS left an annotation ()

Reference the Temporary TROs queried by Cllr Price but not pursued, each one of the dozens and dozens (how many?) 'inflicted', was quoted at £750 each in the letter to RC Chair dated 19/2/13. This no longer appears to be on the Powys web site (Shropshire was reportedly calculating the cost as £2,000 each, and that was with adverts in a single language),

However it seems this £750 figure was given in a WDTK reply Reference No: 281

Dear Miss Williams,

Thank you for your request for information dated 07/05/2013 concerning Temporary Traffic Regulation Order)

This is to inform you that your request has been considered and I can
provide the following response:

I can confirm £750 is the current fully inclusive TTRO charge."

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/c...

Helen Dolman (CSP - ICT), Powys County Council

1 Attachment

Freedom of Information Act 2000

Request: F-2014-1807

 

Officer Dealing: Helen Dolman, Information Governance Manager

Direct Dial: 01597 826400

 

Date: 10^th June 2014

 

Dear GLASS

 

Further to my email of 30^th May 2014, in relation to a request for an
internal review in respect of this Freedom of Information request, Powys
County Council has taken to opportunity to reconsider its decision in
respect of this information request.

 

The request.

 

At a Meeting of the Radnorshire Committee on 20/2/13 a Resolution was put
to Committee to close the Moelfre City BOAT to Horse Drawn and Motor
vehicles, but it would be open for two months each year for motorcycles.

 

The Minutes for this meeting are given on 
[1]http://www.powys.gov.uk/min_2013-02-20rs...

 

This does not accurately record the Motion that was put to Members, nor
the result of the vote as actually taken, at item 8.

 

These Minutes were not queried nor corrected at the subsequent Meeting on
20/3/13.  It is understood these 'Approved' Minutes were subsequently
tendered to the High Court. It is understood the Judgment states “The
Council’s records unfortunately lack the clerk’s initial drafts of the
relevant motions."

 

It is understood the Clerk records contemporaneous handwritten notes in a
double sided, spiral bound, A4 notepad. These are then typed up as Draft
Minutes and circulated to some Officers and some Members.

 

1.  Please supply a copy of the precise handwritten wording recorded
contemporaneously at the Meeting.

 

2.  Please supply a copy of the Draft Minutes.

 

3.  Has any Officer requested the Draft Minutes for this item be changed?

 

4.  Were the Final Minutes changed in consequence to any such request?

 

5. What were the/any changes that were made?

 

If the release of this information, which we consider should be in the
public domain, albeit acknowledging Draft Minutes may be subject to any
appropriate corrections, is declined or refused, please explain why this
is considered necessary, and also please review any such decision, such
that the reply given is a final reply.

 

Findings

 

The first five paragraphs of your email, do not actually request recorded
information from Powys County Council, but provide an introduction to the
actual information requested, therefore I propose to concentrate purely on
that information requested.

 

Question 1

As described in my decision email of the 30^th May 2014, the book to which
you refer is no longer in the known possession of the Council.

 

The circumstances and timeframes surrounding the disappearance of this
book is still under investigation, however initial findings indicate that
the book did not contain personal and or sensitive personal data, as
defined under the Data Protection Act 1998, and therefore based upon
guidance provided by the ICO, Powys County Council is not required to
notify the loss to the ICO.

 

Please find a link to the relevant guidance below

[2]http://ico.org.uk/for_organisations/data...

 

Powys County Council is aware of section 77 of the Freedom of Information
Act 2000, in relation to an “offence of altering etc. records with intent
to prevent disclosure.”

 

Within my decision notice of 30^th May 2014 I advised that Section 1 of
the Act provides the right of the requestor be informed in writing whether
it holds the information, and to have that information provided to them.

 

However in the case of the note book requested Powys County Council does
not have the information requested, and so cannot provide that which it
does not have. No exemption against disclosure is relevant because no
disclosure would be possible.

 

Question 2 

A copy of the draft minutes developed by the Clerk are provided as an
attachment. However in making this disclosure it must be understood that
notes taken at the meeting are one person’s understanding, in this case
the Clerks, of events, conversations and decisions that took place, and it
is the norm for notes to be developed into draft minutes for further
comment and amendment, to allow for a set of minutes to be provided for
the next meeting for ratification.

 

Questions 3 & 4

An amendment to the initial draft was put forward, by an officer of the
Council, and the draft minutes were subsequently amended and approved at
the next meeting on 20^th March 2013.

 

Question 5

The suggested amendment related to item 8, but from the draft minutes
attached and the final minutes you refer to within your request all
changes to the initial draft can be established.

 

Subsequent questions

In relation to other questions posed within your emails of 31^st May 2014
at 11:54, 31^st May 2014 at 17:23, 2^nd June 2014 and 4^th June 2014, that
fall within this information request and reconsideration then please find
below our response. However please note that some points and questions
raised within your emails are not questions for clarification to the
response provided to your request, but are your opinions upon the process,
the High Court case, and Powys County Council in general and as such fall
outside of scope of this internal review of our handling of an information
request.

 

Email 31^st May 2014 11:54

A request for all emails to and from the clerk referring to changing the
minutes, this is an extension to the original request for information and
so falls outside the scope of the internal review, however I am aware that
this has now been referred to Powys County Council as a separate and new
Freedom of Information request, and has been acknowledged as such.

 

Email 31^st May 2014 17:23 

A request for an explanation as to why Powys County Council took the full
20 working days to respond to the request. Responding to an information
request is not undertaken in isolation, and may require involving a number
of different staff to task and monitor requests, gather information,
consider the application of exemptions and to seek and obtain approval for
responses. All staff are required to prioritise their work loads and act
accordingly, however staff are fully aware of their responsibilities in
ensuring that the Council can meet its obligations to information
legislation.

 

Email 2^nd June 2014.

A request whether there was A-V or sound recording in operation for the
meeting of the 20^th February 2014, this is an extension to the original
request for information and so falls outside the scope of the internal
review.

 

Email 4^th June 2014

Request to breakdown the response provided to F-2014-2105 via what do they
know, in relation to the number of requests for information requests made
in relation to byways etc. Again, this is an extension to the original
request for information and so falls outside the scope of the internal
review, and would need to be considered as a separate request.

 

Conclusion

Powys County Council provides the information requested within your
request F-2014-1807, and hopes this disclosure meets with your
requirements.  

 

I appreciate that you may feel you did not receive all the information you
requested, but I find that this request is now closed.

 

Should you remain dissatisfied then you can make an appeal to the
Information Commissioner, who is the statutory regulator. The Information
Commissioner can be contacted at:

 

Information Commissioner’s Office

Wycliffe House

Water Lane

Wilmslow

Cheshire

SK9 5AF

Telephone 01625 545 700

 

[3]www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Helen Dolman

Information Governance Manager

01597 826400

 

 

show quoted sections

References

Visible links
1. http://www.powys.gov.uk/min_2013-02-20rs...
2. http://ico.org.uk/for_organisations/data...
3. http://www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk/

Chris Marsden left an annotation ()

This explanation may give clarity, if I may make an annotation directly on this concluded high court case.

As these matters might still be investigated by a regulatory authority, a tribunal or court, as either perjury, contempt, perverting the course of justice, criminal concealment contrary to FOIA s77 or as prejudicial to justice as noted by Powys Council, it is appropriate to be circumspect as to detailed evidence, at this time.

(1) I attended the RC mtg 20-2-13, specifically to hear this item.

(2) I recorded and noted very carefully what was said.

(3) Later, on the very same day, 20-2-13, I emailed some associates, including 2 solicitors, a contemporaneous summary of what I heard. This confirmed the meeting resolved a 4 year PTRO with Moelfre open 2 months to m/cycles.

(4) Superficially the 'WBiN 4 year then review and MC open for 2m to m/cycles' PTROs are very similar to the report PTROs, and seem very minor differences, but has huge ramifications. It differs from the consequent 'sealed legal order' (later to be quashed) which could have led to defective prosecutions in a law court.

(5) I made a Witness Statement to THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE, QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION, ADMINISTRATIVE COURT, CARDIFF, signed and dated 7-8-13.

(6) this stated the committee resolved to make TROs over WBIN and Moelfre City.
~ WBIN "be subject to a permanent TRO for 4 years",
~ secondly that Moelfre City "be open for 2 months per year for motorcycles".

(7) It also stated: "I believe that it is now quite clear that my account of the meeting is accurate and that Mr Stafford-Tolley’s is not."

(8) No witnesses were called to give evidence in person.

(9) Ground 12 of the skeleton argument presented in court was in very similar terms:
~ "Mr Marsden attended the committee meeting which resolved WBIN be subject to a traffic regulation order for 4 years (following which Powys CC would consider what to do)"
~ and Moelfre City "be open for 2 months per year for motorcycles".
and
~ "That is to say the orders as made are not the orders which the committee resolved to make"

(10) The council claimed their 'final' minutes, as approved in March 2013 were correct. But (as noted by the Judge) they failed to provide the clerk's handwritten notes or his draft minutes, despite emails confirming officers had asked for the minutes to be changed by the clerk, who had said he was in their hands. Providing the draft minutes to the court would indeed have settled the matter.

(11) The Judge, after hearing the conflicting views, e.g. "Mr Marsden was at the meeting and has given his account as to what he thought was decided", had to decide whether to believe me or the Council. Councils should not lie, nor should solicitors. The Judge, unsurprisingly gave the benefit of the doubt to the Council, as the minutes reflected the reports proposal, and were approved at the following meeting.

(12) A page taken from a LARA draft booklet, with proposals written in long-hand by a Powys officer, which were not proposals from LARA, but were part of general management options as the later part of a graduated process, taken out of context, and in breach of confidence, had 'Draft and Without Prejudice' printed on the bottom, taken verbally by one of the officers, from an intermediary in Jan 2013, who had no locus to negotiate an offer on the ongoing case, as he had made clear to the officer. A copy of this was handed to me by Mr Brown whilst the meeting was in progress, it was the first sight I had had of it.

(13) However THIS bastardised proposal (where MC was open for 2 months to m/cycles) was put to committee, it was not the one consulted on, but it was the one voted on, and adopted. The transcription GLASS kindly posted recently makes this absolutely clear. Neither this proposal nor the transcript were seen by the judge.

(14) As the emails requesting changes of the draft minutes show, the original minutes did accurately detail what was resolved, before the clerk was persuaded to change to the version on the Powys web site, which is clearly inaccurate.

(15) There are possibly two versions of draft minutes. The first containing understandable errors, the sort that could be advised to the clerk by anyone attending, for example heavy duty vehicles (doubtless from H.D.V. in notes) in place of horse drawn vehicles. It may be this first draft was only sent to officers, before the second draft was distributed more widely, or perhaps that the clerk was at first reluctant to make all the changes requested by the officer?

(16) However the resolution was not the one that LARA, the report, nor any of the consultation respondents wanted. Nor was it the order that was eventually sealed. I am on record for advocating the use of appropriate PTROs, such as seasonal, or flexible, or authorised users, as espoused in the MAS policy, or the far more comprehensive LARA management document. This is available to local authorities and considered as a best practice. http://www.laragb.org/pdf_files/TRO-1-is... and http://www.laragb.org/pdf_files/TRO-2-is...

(17) This point was not appealed, as a satisfactory overall result was achieved on other grounds.

(18) My personal view is that the verbalised / hand-written notes proposal may have been concocted to make it acceptable to committee, with the intention of subsequently changing subtly, back to what had been in the report.

(19) Why should the clerk invent words for the draft minutes exactly matching the resolution I heard put to committee, when he had the words of the report already reproduced in the agenda? (Normal practice on an adopted resolution is to copy the words verbatim)

(20) Clearly this raises a number of uncomfortable questions for Powys County Council and for officers.

(21) The comparison between the draft and final minutes will confirm this when they are provided.

Chris Marsden left an annotation ()

Please note, my above annotation was added before the 10 June 2014 Powys reply had been received. It does confirm the points made, and raises a number of issues.

Dear Helen Dolman (CSP - ICT),

We note and thank you for the response "PowysCounty Council has taken to opportunity to reconsider its decision in respect of this information request.", we have been advised was sent today, this will be considered.

On the 6/6/14 at Point 3. we said "we hope to have the differences (at least) between the Draft and the Final Minutes of Item 8 of 20/2/13 early next week. We are pleased to do this now. This we had intended to do today, they are:-

--------------------

DRAFT VERSION:-
Being mindful of the outcome of an appeal against proposed actions and following a vote with one abstension it was RESOLVED:

8.1 Moelfre City By-way

To permanently suspend the use of horse drawn and four wheeled mechanically propelled vehicles through the year in accordance with the draft order on the understanding that the by-way would be available for two wheeled mechanically propelled vehicles during two months of the year weather dependant.

FINAL VERSION:-
Being aware of a pending out of court settlement and following a vote with one abstention it was RESOLVED:

8.1 Moelfre City By-way

To permanently close by Traffic Regulation Order the by-way known as Moelfre City for horse drawn vehicles, four wheel drive vehicles and motorcycles throughout the year by section 1(a)(b)(d)(e) Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.

--------------------

DRAFT VERSION:-
8.2 Wate Break its Neck By-way

To permanently suspend the use of horse drawn and mechanically propelled vehicles through the year in accordance with the draft order.

Members were reminded that permanment as stated above would mean for a period of four years during which maintenance work would be undertaken to bring the by-ways up to a standard fit for the above activities. It was agreed to receive an update on matters at the next meeting.

FINAL VERSION:-
8.2 Water Break its Neck By-way

To permanently close by Traffic Regulation Order the by-way known as Water Break its Neck for horse drawn vehicles, four wheel drive vehicles and motorcycles
throughout the year by section 1(a)(b)(d)(e) Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.

--------------------

This coincides precisely with what was attached to your reply of 10/6/14 and the 'Final Minutes on the Web Site.

We are now informed It does indicate there WAS an earlier draft version referring in 8.1 to Permanently close by TRO the by-way known as Moelfre City for heavy duty vehicles, motorcycles and four wheeled drive vehicles on the understanding that the by-way would be available for motorcycles during two months of the year weather dependent.

No doubt any further investigation will establish this minor issue, but it does confirm the Transcription we were provided with, was entirely accurate in this very important aspect.

Yours sincerely,

GLASS