Developable Area at Rookwood

The request was refused by Horsham District Council.

Dear Horsham District Council,

Horsham District Council propose to build on Rookwood Golf Club and the site is being considered by the Planning Authority whether to include this as a strategic site in the Local Plan.
The Draft Local Plan 2020 for Land at Rookwood SHELAA Reference: SA394 gives the site area as 39Ha.
The response (Comment ID: 5168) by Mr Brian Elliott of Horsham District Council on 30 March 2020 in Appendix B Concept Masterplan and Vision (https://strategicplanning.horsham.gov.uk...)
states on p70 section 6.4 that:
The total developable area is 19.69 ha with circa 1110 family homes at a density of 56.3 dph.
Please provide a site plan to show exactly what Horsham District Council consider to be the developable area on the site.
It would be most helpful if this could be an electronic scaled site plan of the whole site that also shows the concept layout plan as an overlay.

Yours faithfully,

Philip Ayerst

Freedom of Information Act (FOI) 2000 / Environmental Information
Regulations (EIR) 2004 / Data Protection Act (DPA) 2018

Thank you for your information request which is being dealt with under the
terms of the relevant legislation.

FOI and EIR requests will be answered within twenty working days. EIR
requests may require an extension of time to 40 working days where the
complexity and volume of the information requested means that it is
impracticable either to comply with the request within the earlier period
or to make a decision to refuse to do so.

GDPR and Data Protection Act - Subject Access Requests will be answered
within 1 month, unless the request is a complex one requiring the Council
to extend the deadline for up to 3 months. Other requests under the DPA
will be answered within 10 working days.

If you have any queries about this request please contact us via
[Horsham District Council request email] quoting the reference number in the subject line of
this email.

Yours sincerely,

Information Governance Team

FOI, Horsham District Council

Dear  Philip Ayerst

 

Environmental Information Regulations 2004 Response

 

Further to our acknowledgement we can now respond to your request for
information dated 26/07/2020.

 

We have dealt with your request in accordance with our ‘duty to make
available environmental information on request’ under part 2 (5)
Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIRs), which entitles you to
be provided with a copy of any information ‘held’ by a public authority.
The requested information relates to land development and  therefore is
environmental within the meaning of Regulation 2(1) of the EIRs.

 

Please note that under part 3 of the EIRs a public authority may refuse to
disclose environmental information if an exception under Regulation 12 (4)
or 12 (5) applies  and in all the circumstances of the case the public
interest in maintaining the exception outweighs the public interest in
disclosing the information.

 

In your email of 26/07/2020 you asked for the following information to
which we have added our response in red text:

 

Please provide a site plan to show exactly what Horsham District Council
consider to be the developable area on the site.

We confirm that we hold information within the scope of your request.
However, we consider that the exception at Regulation (12) (4) (d)
applies. This exception allows information to be withheld if it relates to
material which is still in the course of completion and/or unfinished
documents and also to incomplete data.

 

Exceptions under Regulation 12 of the EIRs are subject to the public
interest test. In applying these exceptions we have had to balance the
public interest in withholding the information against the public interest
in disclosure, applying the presumption in favour of disclosure in EIR
Regulation 12(2).

 

Public interest arguments in favour of disclosing the information

We recognise that the decisions Council staff make have a significant
impact on the lives of citizens and there is a public interest in this
process being transparent. We also recognise that greater transparency
makes local government more accountable and increases trust. There is a
public interest in providing the public with the information it needs to
satisfy itself that the process by which local government makes decisions
is of a high quality. This particularly applies to the potential
development of a site.  Disclosure of the requested information could
assist public understanding of how development planning decisions are made
which enables them to understand more clearly what proposals and
considerations are in relation to the land at Rookwood.

 

Public Interest arguments in favour of withholding the information-
Regulation (12) (4) (d)- material still in the course of completion and/or
unfinished documents and to incomplete data.

The site has not been allocated for development so there is no agreed
developable area. The information requested is part of the promoter’s
application process.  The representation provided by the promoter shows
the land that they are asking us to consider for allocations as part of
the Local Plan Review. There are other indicative areas that are in the
public domain. These are in draft form and may therefore be varied as the
Local Plan Review progresses.

 

We are still considering options regarding the site and it is important
that Council staff retain the ability to engage, gather in views, debate
issues and consider emerging evidence relating to proposed land
development freely and in confidence, before reaching a final decision and
reflecting that in a final set of published documents.

 

Taking the above into account, we consider that the balance of the public
interest lies in applying the Regulation (12) (4) (d) exception and
withholding the information.

 

If you wish to re-use the information supplied for any purpose other than
personal or non-commercial use you will need to make a written application
to the relevant department of the Council or author of the material
concerned.

 

If you are dissatisfied with this response and wish to request a review of
our decision or make a complaint about how your request has been handled
you should write to the Reviewing Officer, Legal & Democratic Services,
Parkside, Chart Way, Horsham, West Sussex RH12 1RL or by email to
[1][Horsham District Council request email]

 

Your request for internal review should be submitted to us within 40
working days of receipt by you of this response.  Any such request
received after this time will be considered at the discretion of the Legal
Services team.

 

If having exhausted the review process you are not content that your
request or review has been dealt with correctly, you have the right to
appeal to the Information Commissioner at Wycliffe House, Water Lane,
Wilmslow, SK9 5AF.  Further details of this process are available on the
ICO website at [2]www.ICO.org.uk

 

There is no charge for making an appeal.

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

 

Diane Lambert [5]Horsham
Information Governance Officer District
Council
[3]http://satellite.horsham.gov.uk/images/e... logo
 

 
Horsham District Council, Parkside, Chart Way, Horsham, West Sussex RH12
1RL
Telephone: 01403 215100 (calls may be recorded)   [6]www.horsham.gov.uk  
Chief Executive: Glen Chipp

From: Philip Ayerst <[FOI #679769 email]>
Sent: 26 July 2020 11:35
To: FOI <[email address]>
Subject: Freedom of Information request - Developable Area at Rookwood

 

Dear Horsham District Council,

Horsham District Council propose to build on Rookwood Golf Club and the
site is being considered by the Planning Authority whether to include this
as a strategic site in the Local Plan.
The Draft Local Plan 2020 for Land at Rookwood SHELAA Reference: SA394
gives the site area as 39Ha.
The response (Comment ID: 5168) by Mr Brian Elliott of Horsham District
Council on 30 March 2020 in Appendix B Concept Masterplan and Vision
([7]https://strategicplanning.horsham.gov.uk...)
states on p70 section 6.4 that:
The total developable area is 19.69 ha with circa 1110 family homes at a
density of 56.3 dph.
Please provide a site plan to show exactly what Horsham District Council
consider to be the developable area on the site.
It would be most helpful if this could be an electronic scaled site plan
of the whole site that also shows the concept layout plan as an overlay.

Yours faithfully,

Philip Ayerst

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

Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[FOI #679769 email]

Is [Horsham District Council request email] the wrong address for Freedom of Information
requests to Horsham District Council? If so, please contact us using this
form:
[8]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/change_re...

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

For more detailed guidance on safely disclosing information, read the
latest advice from the ICO:
[10]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/ico-...

Please note that in some cases publication of requests and responses will
be delayed.

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

Dear Horsham District Council,

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

I am writing to request an internal review of Horsham District Council's handling of my FOI request 'Developable Area at Rookwood'.
FOI request:
"Horsham District Council propose to build on Rookwood Golf Club and the site is being considered by the Planning Authority whether to include this as a strategic site in the Local Plan.
The Draft Local Plan 2020 for Land at Rookwood SHELAA Reference: SA394 gives the site area as 39Ha.
The response (Comment ID: 5168) by Mr Brian Elliott of Horsham District Council on 30 March 2020 in Appendix B Concept Masterplan and Vision (https://strategicplanning.horsham.gov.uk...)
states on p70 section 6.4 that:
The total developable area is 19.69 ha with circa 1110 family homes at a density of 56.3 dph.
Please provide a site plan to show exactly what Horsham District Council consider to be the developable area on the site.
It would be most helpful if this could be an electronic scaled site plan of the whole site that also shows the concept layout plan as an overlay."

The site areas is unclear and does not match the ground. There is confusion caused by Horsham District Council not revealing what is included as the site and what excluded. The site is claimed to be 19.69 or perhaps 39HA, yet appears to be about 66HA. The areas have changed from different SHELAA references as recently as 2018. This confusion needs resolving.
The work must be is complete in order to the calculate the 56.3 dph density that is in the public domain, but the area to which it refers is withheld. This is perverse.
Horsham District Council are the promoter of this site so FOI and EIR requests equally cover all organisations.
The public interest test refusal is unproven and unjustified, so the presumption is be to release the information.
In your own words: “There is a public interest in providing the public with the information it needs to satisfy itself that the process by which local government makes decisions is of a high quality. This particularly applies to the potential development of a site. Disclosure of the requested information could assist public understanding of how development planning decisions are made which enables them to understand more clearly what proposals and considerations are in relation to the land at Rookwood.”
There is a clear and demonstratable public interest to know exactly what area is included.
I challenge the refusal and request the information be released.

Environmental Information Regulations 2004 Response
"Further to our acknowledgement we can now respond to your request for Information dated 26/07/2020.
We have dealt with your request in accordance with our ‘duty to make available environmental information on request’ under part 2 (5) Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIRs), which entitles you to be provided with a copy of any information ‘held’ by a public authority. The requested information relates to land development and therefore is environmental within the meaning of Regulation 2(1) of the EIRs."
• Are the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 applicable?
• This is not environmental information as the area is not the state of the environment under 2 1 a, or factors under 2 1 b, while 2 1 c applies only if a or b applies. Since a and b do not apply c cannot be applicable.
• This is about identifying the affected area, not the state of the environment at present and is the brief to work out how to deal with it. It is not part of the planning strategy, but a document commissioned by Horsham District Council Housing to identify which land has been included.
• Areas are unclear SA 394 says one thing, yet the site is a different size. In previous years HDC planners have treated Rookwood as two SHELAA sites: SA395 north of Warnham Road and SA394 to the south. However, in the local plan document, the site is referred to only as SA394 and the stated site area (39 hectares) is a lot less than the combined north and south parcels (about 66 hectares). In 2007 as Site ADS 31 Rookwood Golf Course. The was approximately 50 hectares.
• There is great confusion over exactly what has been included, so public interest to know.
• 2 1 d reports on implementation of environmental information, so d does not apply.
• 2 1 e refers to cost benefit and economic analyses, yet there is no finance is involved, so e cannot apply
• 2 1 f refers to food and health, so that does not apply
• This information is not covered under EIR. You refer to public trust and transparency, so this reinforces to need to publish.
"Please note that under part 3 of the EIRs a public authority may refuse to disclose environmental information if an exception under Regulation 12 (4) or 12 (5) applies and in all the circumstances of the case the public interest in maintaining the exception outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.
In your email of 26/07/2020 you asked for the following information to which we have added our response in red text:"
Please provide a site plan to show exactly what Horsham District Council consider to be the developable area on the site.
"We confirm that we hold information within the scope of your request. However, we consider that the exception at Regulation (12) (4) (d) applies. This exception allows information to be withheld if it relates to material which is still in the course of completion and/or unfinished documents and also to incomplete data."
• This is not incomplete data. The area must have been decided and finalised in order to calculate and publish in the public domain the proposed density to one place of decimal. By this argument, the density will never to be finalised until the final property is built. If so, how can the density be agreed for planning purpose at the start of the development?
• Any layout is a snapshot in time. The current layout and density is published which shows that this is a completed phase so should be made available for viewing. . This is in the interest of “Public trust and transparency.”
• Note Regulation 12(4)(d) provides an exception to the duty to make environmental information available when the request relates to material which is still in the course of completion, unfinished documents or incomplete data. These terms are not defined in the EIR so is based on guidance not legislation.
• Note ….but any adverse effects of disclosure may be relevant to the public interest test.
• “It should also be acknowledged that public authorities should have the necessary space to think in private” which is fair enough, but this has been published without the grounds of how the published areas have been calculated. “In each such case, the public interest served by the disclosure of such information should be taken into account.”
• “However, the fact that a public authority has not completed a particular project or other piece of work does not necessarily mean that all the information the authority holds relating to it is automatically covered by the exception.” In this case the enabling piece of work, the calculation of density and areas, has been completed and published.
"Exceptions under Regulation 12 of the EIRs are subject to the public interest test. In applying these exceptions we have had to balance the public interest in withholding the information against the public interest in disclosure, applying the presumption in favour of disclosure in EIR Regulation 12(2)."
"Public interest arguments in favour of disclosing the information"
"We recognise that the decisions Council staff make have a significant impact on the lives of citizens and there is a public interest in this process being transparent. We also recognise that greater transparency makes local government more accountable and increases trust. There is a public interest in providing the public with the information it needs to satisfy itself that the process by which local government makes decisions is of a high quality. This particularly applies to the potential development of a site. Disclosure of the requested information could assist public understanding of how development planning decisions are made which enables them to understand more clearly what proposals and considerations are in relation to the land at Rookwood."
• You have put the case succinctly:
• “There is a public interest in providing the public with the information it needs to satisfy itself that the process by which local government makes decisions is of a high quality”.
• “This particularly applies to the potential development of a site. Disclosure of the requested information could assist public understanding of how development planning decisions are made which enables them to understand more clearly what proposals and considerations are in relation to the land at Rookwood.”
• Public trust and transparency is not met when your own words agree with my request.

"Public Interest arguments in favour of withholding the information- Regulation (12) (4) (d)- material still in the course of completion and/or unfinished documents and to incomplete data.
The site has not been allocated for development so there is no agreed developable area. The information requested is part of the promoter’s application process. The representation provided by the promoter shows the land that they are asking us to consider for allocations as part of the Local Plan Review. There are other indicative areas that are in the public domain. These are in draft form and may therefore be varied as the Local Plan Review progresses."
• The density of housing is given as 56.3 dph and this figure is then used to argue that the density restriction is too low. This means that the exact area must be defined, by Horsham District Council’s own development company and the details known
• The promoter is Horsham District Council , not an independent developer so this request equally applies to your development company Horsham District Homes
• The land areas is unclear, varying between 33HA, 50HA and 66HA.

"We are still considering options regarding the site and it is important that Council staff retain the ability to engage, gather in views, debate issues and consider emerging evidence relating to proposed land development freely and in confidence, before reaching a final decision and
reflecting that in a final set of published documents."
"Taking the above into account, we consider that the balance of the public interest lies in applying the Regulation (12) (4) (d) exception and `withholding the information."
• “Under regulation 12(1)(b), the public authority can only withhold the information if, in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exception outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information”.
• “Furthermore, under regulation 12(2), it must apply a presumption in favour of disclosure.”
• Consider “public trust and transparency”. It is clear from local press, events and councillors’ correspondence that this site is high on the public’s interest.
• From local government lawyer: “The test for the balance of public interests is a comparative one; so that the weaker the case for one side, the less public interest is needed on the other side to outweigh it. Under the EIR it is necessary to show how the presumption in favour of disclosure has been factored into the consideration.”
• “There is a public interest in good decision-making by public bodies, in upholding standards of integrity”
• I challenge the refusal as Horsham District Council public interest claim falls.
Under the Regulations, most exceptions are subject to the public interest test. This is an extra stage in the process of deciding what information to provide, which requires you to balance the public interest arguments for disclosing the information against those for upholding the exception. This means that even if disclosing information would harm, for example, international relations, you must still release the information if the public interest arguments for disclosing it are stronger. The public interest is not necessarily the same as what the public finds interesting.
• Under regulation 12(2), there should be a presumption in favour of disclosure

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

Yours faithfully,

Philip Ayerst

FOI, Horsham District Council

Dear Philip Ayerst

 

The Council acknowledges receipt of your email below, requesting a review
of our response under reference 4588.

 

We aim to complete our review and provide a substantive response within 20
working days of receipt. If we find that the issue requires more lengthy
consideration then you will be notified of the outcome within the 40
working day limit set out in the ICO guidance on reviews under the
Environmental Information Regulations 2004. We have noted that part of
your request for a review includes the application of this legislation.

 

 

Yours sincerely,

[3]Horsham
Information Governance Review Team District
Council
[1]http://satellite.horsham.gov.uk/images/e... logo

 

 

 

 
Horsham District Council, Parkside, Chart Way, Horsham, West Sussex RH12
1RL
Telephone: 01403 215100 (calls may be recorded)   [4]www.horsham.gov.uk  
Chief Executive: Glen Chipp

From: Philip Ayerst <[FOI #679769 email]>
Sent: 01 September 2020 15:00
To: FOI <[email address]>
Subject: Internal review of Freedom of Information request - Developable
Area at Rookwood

 

Dear Horsham District Council,

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

I am writing to request an internal review of Horsham District Council's
handling of my FOI request 'Developable Area at Rookwood'.

FOI request:

"Horsham District Council propose to build on Rookwood Golf Club and the
site is being considered by the Planning Authority whether to include this
as a strategic site in the Local Plan.

The Draft Local Plan 2020 for Land at Rookwood SHELAA Reference: SA394
gives the site area as 39Ha.

The response (Comment ID: 5168) by Mr Brian Elliott of Horsham District
Council on 30 March 2020 in Appendix B Concept Masterplan and Vision
([5]https://strategicplanning.horsham.gov.uk...)

states on p70 section 6.4 that:

The total developable area is 19.69 ha with circa 1110 family homes at a
density of 56.3 dph.

Please provide a site plan to show exactly what Horsham District Council
consider to be the developable area on the site.

It would be most helpful if this could be an electronic scaled site plan
of the whole site that also shows the concept layout plan as an overlay."

The site areas is unclear and does not match the ground. There is
confusion caused by Horsham District Council not revealing what is
included as the site and what excluded. The site is claimed to be 19.69 or
perhaps 39HA, yet appears to be about 66HA. The areas have changed from
different SHELAA references as recently as 2018. This confusion needs
resolving.

The work must be is complete in order to the calculate the 56.3 dph
density that is in the public domain, but the area to which it refers is
withheld. This is perverse.

Horsham District Council are the promoter of this site so FOI and EIR
requests equally cover all organisations.

The public interest test refusal is unproven and unjustified, so the
presumption is be to release the information.

In your own words: “There is a public interest in providing the public
with the information it needs to satisfy itself that the process by which
local government makes decisions is of a high quality. This particularly
applies to the potential development of a site. Disclosure of the
requested information could assist public understanding of how development
planning decisions are made which enables them to understand more clearly
what proposals and considerations are in relation to the land at
Rookwood.”

There is a clear and demonstratable public interest to know exactly what
area is included.

I challenge the refusal and request the information be released.

Environmental Information Regulations 2004 Response

"Further to our acknowledgement we can now respond to your request for
Information dated 26/07/2020.

We have dealt with your request in accordance with our ‘duty to make
available environmental information on request’ under part 2 (5)
Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIRs), which entitles you to
be provided with a copy of any information ‘held’ by a public authority.
The requested information relates to land development and therefore is
environmental within the meaning of Regulation 2(1) of the EIRs."

• Are the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 applicable?

• This is not environmental information as the area is not the state of
the environment under 2 1 a, or factors under 2 1 b, while 2 1 c applies
only if a or b applies. Since a and b do not apply c cannot be applicable.

• This is about identifying the affected area, not the state of the
environment at present and is the brief to work out how to deal with it.
It is not part of the planning strategy, but a document commissioned by
Horsham District Council Housing to identify which land has been included.

• Areas are unclear SA 394 says one thing, yet the site is a different
size. In previous years HDC planners have treated Rookwood as two SHELAA
sites: SA395 north of Warnham Road and SA394 to the south. However, in the
local plan document, the site is referred to only as SA394 and the stated
site area (39 hectares) is a lot less than the combined north and south
parcels (about 66 hectares). In 2007 as Site ADS 31 Rookwood Golf Course.
The was approximately 50 hectares.

• There is great confusion over exactly what has been included, so public
interest to know.

• 2 1 d reports on implementation of environmental information, so d does
not apply.

• 2 1 e refers to cost benefit and economic analyses, yet there is no
finance is involved, so e cannot apply

• 2 1 f refers to food and health, so that does not apply

• This information is not covered under EIR. You refer to public trust and
transparency, so this reinforces to need to publish.

"Please note that under part 3 of the EIRs a public authority may refuse
to disclose environmental information if an exception under Regulation 12
(4) or 12 (5) applies and in all the circumstances of the case the public
interest in maintaining the exception outweighs the public interest in
disclosing the information.

In your email of 26/07/2020 you asked for the following information to
which we have added our response in red text:"

Please provide a site plan to show exactly what Horsham District Council
consider to be the developable area on the site.

"We confirm that we hold information within the scope of your request.
However, we consider that the exception at Regulation (12) (4) (d)
applies. This exception allows information to be withheld if it relates to
material which is still in the course of completion and/or unfinished
documents and also to incomplete data."

• This is not incomplete data. The area must have been decided and
finalised in order to calculate and publish in the public domain the
proposed density to one place of decimal. By this argument, the density
will never to be finalised until the final property is built. If so, how
can the density be agreed for planning purpose at the start of the
development?

• Any layout is a snapshot in time. The current layout and density is
published which shows that this is a completed phase so should be made
available for viewing. . This is in the interest of “Public trust and
transparency.”

• Note Regulation 12(4)(d) provides an exception to the duty to make
environmental information available when the request relates to material
which is still in the course of completion, unfinished documents or
incomplete data. These terms are not defined in the EIR so is based on
guidance not legislation.

• Note ….but any adverse effects of disclosure may be relevant to the
public interest test.

• “It should also be acknowledged that public authorities should have the
necessary space to think in private” which is fair enough, but this has
been published without the grounds of how the published areas have been
calculated. “In each such case, the public interest served by the
disclosure of such information should be taken into account.”

• “However, the fact that a public authority has not completed a
particular project or other piece of work does not necessarily mean that
all the information the authority holds relating to it is automatically
covered by the exception.” In this case the enabling piece of work, the
calculation of density and areas, has been completed and published.

"Exceptions under Regulation 12 of the EIRs are subject to the public
interest test. In applying these exceptions we have had to balance the
public interest in withholding the information against the public interest
in disclosure, applying the presumption in favour of disclosure in EIR
Regulation 12(2)."

"Public interest arguments in favour of disclosing the information"

"We recognise that the decisions Council staff make have a significant
impact on the lives of citizens and there is a public interest in this
process being transparent. We also recognise that greater transparency
makes local government more accountable and increases trust. There is a
public interest in providing the public with the information it needs to
satisfy itself that the process by which local government makes decisions
is of a high quality. This particularly applies to the potential
development of a site. Disclosure of the requested information could
assist public understanding of how development planning decisions are made
which enables them to understand more clearly what proposals and
considerations are in relation to the land at Rookwood."

• You have put the case succinctly:

• “There is a public interest in providing the public with the information
it needs to satisfy itself that the process by which local government
makes decisions is of a high quality”.

• “This particularly applies to the potential development of a site.
Disclosure of the requested information could assist public understanding
of how development planning decisions are made which enables them to
understand more clearly what proposals and considerations are in relation
to the land at Rookwood.”

• Public trust and transparency is not met when your own words agree with
my request.

"Public Interest arguments in favour of withholding the information-
Regulation (12) (4) (d)- material still in the course of completion and/or
unfinished documents and to incomplete data.

The site has not been allocated for development so there is no agreed
developable area. The information requested is part of the promoter’s
application process. The representation provided by the promoter shows the
land that they are asking us to consider for allocations as part of the
Local Plan Review. There are other indicative areas that are in the public
domain. These are in draft form and may therefore be varied as the Local
Plan Review progresses."

• The density of housing is given as 56.3 dph and this figure is then used
to argue that the density restriction is too low. This means that the
exact area must be defined, by Horsham District Council’s own development
company and the details known

• The promoter is Horsham District Council , not an independent developer
so this request equally applies to your development company Horsham
District Homes

• The land areas is unclear, varying between 33HA, 50HA and 66HA.

"We are still considering options regarding the site and it is important
that Council staff retain the ability to engage, gather in views, debate
issues and consider emerging evidence relating to proposed land
development freely and in confidence, before reaching a final decision and

reflecting that in a final set of published documents."

"Taking the above into account, we consider that the balance of the public
interest lies in applying the Regulation (12) (4) (d) exception and
`withholding the information."

• “Under regulation 12(1)(b), the public authority can only withhold the
information if, in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest
in maintaining the exception outweighs the public interest in disclosing
the information”.

• “Furthermore, under regulation 12(2), it must apply a presumption in
favour of disclosure.”

• Consider “public trust and transparency”. It is clear from local press,
events and councillors’ correspondence that this site is high on the
public’s interest.

• From local government lawyer: “The test for the balance of public
interests is a comparative one; so that the weaker the case for one side,
the less public interest is needed on the other side to outweigh it. Under
the EIR it is necessary to show how the presumption in favour of
disclosure has been factored into the consideration.”

• “There is a public interest in good decision-making by public bodies, in
upholding standards of integrity”

• I challenge the refusal as Horsham District Council public interest
claim falls.

Under the Regulations, most exceptions are subject to the public interest
test. This is an extra stage in the process of deciding what information
to provide, which requires you to balance the public interest arguments
for disclosing the information against those for upholding the exception.
This means that even if disclosing information would harm, for example,
international relations, you must still release the information if the
public interest arguments for disclosing it are stronger. The public
interest is not necessarily the same as what the public finds interesting.

• Under regulation 12(2), there should be a presumption in favour of
disclosure

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

Yours faithfully,

Philip Ayerst

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

Please use this email address for all replies to this request:

[FOI #679769 email]

Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on
the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:

[7]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/offi...

For more detailed guidance on safely disclosing information, read the
latest advice from the ICO:

[8]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/ico-...

Please note that in some cases publication of requests and responses will
be delayed.

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

Dear FOI,
I seek clarification over what constitutes the developable area, since different SHELAA give different figures over time, different from Blueprint calculation which is different again from the Concept Masterplan stated area.
I submit further information for my appeal:
Rookwood is divided into two distinct geographic areas: north and south of the B2237 Warnham
Road, which have independent SHELAA designations:
• SA395 - Rookwood land north of the B2237
• SA394 - Rookwood land south of the B2237
Rookwood - Horsham Blueprint Neighbourhood Forum Perspective:
In September 2016, Horsham Blueprint Neighbourhood Forum commissioned a Site Identification
and Assessment Report 10 from AECOM Infrastructure & Environment. In this, HDC planners treat the
SA394 and SA395 areas independently (Appendix 2) and provide a report for each site.
The total area of the two parcels is given as 66.4 hectares, which correlates well with the value
obtained from internet mapping technology.
Rookwood - 2020 Local Plan Perspective:
The 2020 Horsham District Local Plan consultation document lists the Rookwood strategic site under
the single SHELAA designation SA394 and as having an area of 39 hectares (Appendix 3).
The Rookwood site entry:
• States a site area that Is significantly smaller than provided to the Horsham Blueprint report
• States a site area that is about half of the area outlined in red on page 94 of the local plan
• Makes no reference to the SA395 land at all
in contradiction of these areas is the the “total developable area” across both parts as stated in the Concept Masterplan is 19.69 hectares. https://strategicplanning.horsham.gov.uk... Appendix B p70

Conclusions
1. Within the last four years the Rookwood land has been treated by planners as comprising
two parcels, SA394 (southern land) and SA395 (northern land) with areas of about 32 and 34
hectares, respectively.
2. The information given in the local plan document is inconsistent with the more
comprehensive and accurate information provided to Horsham Blueprint Neighbourhood
Forum
3. The area figure is different again in the Concept Masterplan

Yours sincerely,

Philip Ayerst

FOI, Horsham District Council

Dear Philip Ayerst

 

The Council acknowledges receipt of your email below, which has been added
to your request for  a review of our response under reference 4588.

 

 

Yours sincerely,

[3]Horsham
Information Governance Review Team District
Council
[1]http://satellite.horsham.gov.uk/images/e... logo

 

 

 

   
 

 
Horsham District Council, Parkside, Chart Way, Horsham, West Sussex RH12
1RL
Telephone: 01403 215100 (calls may be recorded)   [4]www.horsham.gov.uk  
Chief Executive: Glen Chipp

From: Philip Ayerst <[FOI #679769 email]>
Sent: 03 September 2020 11:22
To: FOI <[email address]>
Subject: Re: HDCIR:4588 : Internal review of Freedom of Information
request - Developable Area at Rookwood

 

Dear FOI,

I seek clarification over what constitutes the developable area, since
different SHELAA give different figures over time, different from
Blueprint calculation which is different again from the Concept Masterplan
stated area.

I submit further information for my appeal:

Rookwood is divided into two distinct geographic areas: north and south of
the B2237 Warnham

Road, which have independent SHELAA designations:

• SA395 - Rookwood land north of the B2237

• SA394 - Rookwood land south of the B2237

Rookwood - Horsham Blueprint Neighbourhood Forum Perspective:

In September 2016, Horsham Blueprint Neighbourhood Forum commissioned a
Site Identification

and Assessment Report 10 from AECOM Infrastructure & Environment. In this,
HDC planners treat the

SA394 and SA395 areas independently (Appendix 2) and provide a report for
each site.

The total area of the two parcels is given as 66.4 hectares, which
correlates well with the value

obtained from internet mapping technology.

Rookwood - 2020 Local Plan Perspective:

The 2020 Horsham District Local Plan consultation document lists the
Rookwood strategic site under

the single SHELAA designation SA394 and as having an area of 39 hectares
(Appendix 3).

The Rookwood site entry:

• States a site area that Is significantly smaller than provided to the
Horsham Blueprint report

• States a site area that is about half of the area outlined in red on
page 94 of the local plan

• Makes no reference to the SA395 land at all

in contradiction of these areas is the the “total developable area” across
both parts as stated in the Concept Masterplan is 19.69 hectares.
[5]https://strategicplanning.horsham.gov.uk...
Appendix B p70

Conclusions

1. Within the last four years the Rookwood land has been treated by
planners as comprising

two parcels, SA394 (southern land) and SA395 (northern land) with areas of
about 32 and 34

hectares, respectively.

2. The information given in the local plan document is inconsistent with
the more

comprehensive and accurate information provided to Horsham Blueprint
Neighbourhood

Forum

3. The area figure is different again in the Concept Masterplan

Yours sincerely,

Philip Ayerst

show quoted sections

Dear FOI,

As a reminder, the twenty days from 3 Sept to resolve the appeal expired on 1 October. I would have expected to have have received the courtesy of a response or an explanation, but none has been forthcoming.
Forty days will expire on 29 October. Please ensure that you reply by that date.

Yours sincerely,

Philip Ayerst

FOI, Horsham District Council

Dear Mr Ayerst,

 

I apologise for not keeping you informed. We will be providing you with
the substantive response as soon as possible and before the end of next
week. I will advise you of any further delays.

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

Diane Lambert [3]Horsham
Information Governance Officer District
Council
[1]http://satellite.horsham.gov.uk/images/e... logo
 

 
Horsham District Council, Parkside, Chart Way, Horsham, West Sussex RH12
1RL
Telephone: 01403 215100 (calls may be recorded)   [4]www.horsham.gov.uk  
Chief Executive: Glen Chipp

From: Philip Ayerst <[FOI #679769 email]>
Sent: 16 October 2020 09:07
To: FOI <[email address]>
Subject: Re: HDCIR:4588 : Internal review of Freedom of Information
request - Developable Area at Rookwood

 

Dear FOI,

As a reminder, the twenty days from 3 Sept to resolve the appeal expired
on 1 October. I would have expected to have have received the courtesy of
a response or an explanation, but none has been forthcoming.

Forty days will expire on 29 October. Please ensure that you reply by that
date.

Yours sincerely,

Philip Ayerst

show quoted sections

FOI, Horsham District Council

2 Attachments

  • Attachment

    HDCIR 4588 Information request Developable Area at Rookwood.html

    21K Download

  • Attachment

    Statement of Community Involvement approved September 2020.pdf

    1.2M Download View as HTML

Dear Mr Ayerst,

 

Request for an Internal Review

 

We are now in a position to complete the response to your review request
about Rookwood Golf Course and the “Developable Area at Rookwood”.

 

I attach your original request with our response dated 24 August 2020 and
your request for a review is set out in your emails below. We have
reconsidered the original request in the light of the comments you make. 

 

Information Requested

We had originally determined that the requested information formed part of
our considerations through the planning process and was therefore still
work in progress, reflecting initial thinking at an early stage. However,
given the comments you now make, we have re-considered the matter and
confirm that we do not hold a document showing  ‘exactly what Horsham
District Council consider to be developable area on the site’- We should
have asked you for clarification during our original considerations so
that our response would have made that clear. We apologise for the
inconvenience this incorrect response will have caused.

 

Regarding a wider interpretation of the information within scope, as we
originally applied to your request, we maintain our original decision to
withhold information under Regulation (12) (4) (d). All plans that have
been prepared to date are draft only and may be subject to amendment
depending on how the planning allocation process progresses and further
detailed environmental surveys and analysis; this is still ongoing work.

 

I attach our Statement of Community Involvement document for reference,
which can also be found at the following link:
[1]https://www.horsham.gov.uk/planning/plan...

Pages 7 and 8 refer to our obligation to publish a draft planning document
during the Regulation 19 and 20 stages. 

Page 8 of the document sets out how we will meet our statutory
requirements (2.13). We will:

-        Publish all documents and supporting information on the Council’s
website and;

-        Make all consultation documents and supporting information
available for the public

Page 9 goes on to confirm the community opportunity for involvement at
this stage. All stakeholders will be given the opportunity to review the
consultation document and any supporting evidence based documents.

The timetable for the Regulation 19 and 20 stages is as follows:

·        January – February 2021 – Proposed submission and period for
representation  (6 weeks)

·        July – September 2021 – Examination by Inspector

Use of the EIRs

Regarding your request for a review of our handling under the
Environmental Information Regulations (EIR) rather than the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA), we have considered this. Although we do see that
this can be open to interpretation, we have concluded that the information
requested does fall within the definition under Regulation 2(1) of the EIR
which cover: ‘measures (including administrative measures), such as
policies, legislation, plans…. likely to affect the elements and factors
referred to…’, which in this case is ‘land’.

The Rookwood proposal and the potential housing development plans are
measures and activities likely to affect the state of the elements of the
environment, such as air and the atmosphere, soil and land, landscape. The
guidance issued by the ICO states that:

“when the measure under consideration is something that is proposed for
the future, public authorities should consider whether, if the measure
were to go ahead, it would be likely to affect the elements and factors
referred to in regulations 2(1)(a) and (b). The likelihood of a plan
actually coming to fruition is not a relevant consideration. Once it is
established that there is an intention to initiate a plan or to develop a
policy, then this is sufficient to bring information which will contribute
to the preparation of that plan within regulation 2(1)(c)”

We conclude that this applies to the information you have requested in
this instance.

 

Consideration under the FOIA

Although we maintain the accuracy of our decision to apply the EIRs to
your request, we have considered the information under the terms of the
FOIA in order to provide as fair a consideration as possible.

 

As we have set out above, we do not hold a document showing  ‘exactly what
Horsham District Council consider to be developable area on the site’.
However, regarding the wider interpretation of the information within
scope of your request, we have concluded that, if we were to apply this
legislation, we would withhold the information under Section 22 of the
FOIA , relating to future publication. Section 22 states that we are not
obliged to provide information that is intended for future publication. In
line with the terms of this exemption, we have considered whether it would
be in the public interest for us to provide you with the information ahead
of publication. In this case, we have concluded that the public interest
favours withholding the information.

 

When assessing whether or not it was in the public interest to disclose
the information to you, we took into account that the information is still
in draft form and in the process of being prepared for publication. We
have a timetable for publication, as set out above, which means that
information will be made available in January- February 2021.

 

Further clarification

In your email of 3 September below, you state that you now seek :
“clarification over what constitutes the developable area, since different
SHELAA give different figures over time, different from Blueprint
calculation which is different again from the Concept Masterplan stated
area.”

 

Your comments have been noted but under the terms of the EIR and FOI
legislations, you have not requested any specific information so it does
not constitute a request. Additionally, it has not been considered for the
purposes of the Internal Review.

 

If you are not content that this review has been dealt with correctly, you
have the right to appeal to the Information Commissioner at Wycliffe
House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, SK9 5AF.  Further details of this process are
available on the ICO website at [2]www.ICO.org.uk.

 

There is no charge for making an appeal.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Information
Governance
Review Team

    

 

 

 
Horsham District Council, Parkside, Chart Way, Horsham, West Sussex RH12
1RL
Telephone: 01403 215100 (calls may be recorded)   [3]www.horsham.gov.uk  
Chief Executive: Glen Chipp

From: FOI <[email address]>
Sent: 16 October 2020 17:10
To: '[FOI #679769 email]'
<[FOI #679769 email]>
Cc: FOI <[email address]>; FOI <[email address]>
Subject: HDCIR:4588 : Internal review of Freedom of Information request -
Developable Area at Rookwood

 

Dear Mr Ayerst,

 

I apologise for not keeping you informed. We will be providing you with
the substantive response as soon as possible and before the end of next
week. I will advise you of any further delays.

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

Diane Lambert [6]Horsham
Information Governance Officer District
Council
[4]http://satellite.horsham.gov.uk/images/e... logo
 

 
Horsham District Council, Parkside, Chart Way, Horsham, West Sussex RH12
1RL
Telephone: 01403 215100 (calls may be recorded)   [7]www.horsham.gov.uk  
Chief Executive: Glen Chipp

From: Philip Ayerst <[FOI #679769 email]>
Sent: 16 October 2020 09:07
To: FOI <[email address]>
Subject: Re: HDCIR:4588 : Internal review of Freedom of Information
request - Developable Area at Rookwood

 

Dear FOI,

As a reminder, the twenty days from 3 Sept to resolve the appeal expired
on 1 October. I would have expected to have have received the courtesy of
a response or an explanation, but none has been forthcoming.

Forty days will expire on 29 October. Please ensure that you reply by that
date.

Yours sincerely,

Philip Ayerst

show quoted sections