EIR request - Birkenhead Town Hall planning permission air conditioning, part 2
Dear Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council,
In relation to my 20/01/2024 request for a link or copy of the planning permission, listed building consent, conservation area approval, and any other relevant authorisation or
approval for the three air conditioning or heat pump units on the mortimer street side of birkenhead town hall
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/b...
You said there was no recorded information.
On 21/02/2024 I followed up asking for all recorded information on any action of whatever kind and whether formal or informal the council as planning authority has taken to discharge its responsibility to enforce planning control in relation to these three air conditioning or heat pump units outside Birkenhead town hall. And all recorded information regarding any reference, consideration, communication or discussion of the impact the lack of permission here so publicly at Birkenhead town hall may or has had on the level of adherence to planning control by the public, the level of trust and confidence the public have in the council’s implementation of planning control, and on the council’s ability to continue to effectively enforce planning control without detriment.
You said investigations were ongoing and there was no recorded information.
Please now confirm or provide -
1 copies of all recorded information relating to the investigations and any outcomes
2 confirm the three air conditioning units or heat pump units have been removed
3 if they have not been removed then a link to or copy of any applications for and any responses, refusals, or permissions, authorisations or approvals to such applications for planning permission, listed building consent, conservation area approval, and any other relevant authorisation or approval
4 if they have not been removed and there is no permission, authorisation or approval then please provide all recorded information regarding any fines the council as planning authority has levied against itself, and had levied against it by anyone else, and details of any such fines being paid, as well as any other action the council as planning authority has taken against itself, or had taken it by anyone else
5 if there have been no fines, no action, or reduced fines, reduced action, taken by the council as planning authority against itself then all recorded information relating to the decision to limit the action or fining, and relating to the failure to take action or fine at a higher level, and any review of that
This request relates to environmental information so if you attempt to persist with your still as yet unexplained allegations of pseudonym against me on other requests that does not provide any scope to attempt diversion or delay on this request, so please comply with your legal obligations here without such attempts.
Yours faithfully,
John Jones
Dear Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council,
Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.
I am writing to request an internal review of Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council's handling of my FOI request 'EIR request - Birkenhead Town Hall planning permission air conditioning, part 2'.
REASONS -
It is now 35 working days since my EIR request and you have not responded in any way despite the legislation and your own published policy saying you should respond within 20 working days.
A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/e...
Yours faithfully,
John Jones
Information request
Our reference: 474061
══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Dear John Jones
Environmental Information Regulations 2004
Thank you for your email received on 26 September 2024. As you are aware,
the ICO has confirmed that due to your use of a pseudonym, your requests
for information are deemed invalid.
We have sought advice from the ICO in relation to any requests you make
that may fall under the provisions of the Environmental Information
Regulations 2004 and they have confirmed that, whilst there is no
provision within the EIR which allows a public authority to refuse a
request solely on the point of the requester using a suspected pseudonym,
they will not accept any further complaints from 'John Jones' unless and
until they are provided with a valid form of ID.
Yours faithfully
Lynette Paterson
Principal Information Management Officer
Information Management
NOTE: Please do not edit the subject line when replying to this email.
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended
solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender
immediately.
Dear Lynette Paterson,
You say -
'As you are aware, the ICO has confirmed that due to your use of a pseudonym, your requests
for information are deemed invalid.'
I am not aware of that.
Such an incredibly bold and unsubstantiated statement by the ICO is news to me.
Please confirm it is Wirral Council's official position that the ICO confirmed my use of a pseudonym and please confirm who at the ICO made this statement and when.
Also, I see you accept you have no valid reason to refuse my requests under EIR.
The ICO's separate decision not to take action is based on the legislation empowering them to take action under the EIR being imported from the FOI, and their belief that the valid name provisions of the FOI then also apply to their imported powers from the FOI. I believe they are incorrect and I believe they will eventually have to acknowledge that.
Even if they are correct their inability to take action would not forgive your without valid reason refusal which you have now acknowledged here publicly.
Anyhow whether for EIR or FOI I have repeatedly asked you over a significant length of time to provide reasons and evidence in support of your claim of pseudonym and you have provided me with not even a hint of why you say this and have just ignored, so not even transparent about your refusal to be transparent.
The ICO have also given me no hint.
Please can I have the reasons and evidence now.
Yours sincerely,
John Jones
Dear Lynette Paterson,
Still no response to my message of 01/10/2024.
Yours sincerely,
John Jones
Dear Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council,
Please pass this on to the person who conducts EIR reviews.
I am writing to request an internal review of Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council's handling of my EIR request 'EIR request - Birkenhead Town Hall planning permission air conditioning, part 2'.
REASONS –
Even if a pseudonym was used you accept you cannot refuse an EIR request because of that but instead rely on the ICO’s lack of enforcement, which is a quite remarkable position to take, and so publicly.
The ICO’s claim that the right to bring a complaint to them under the EIR relies on section 50(1) FOIA but the ICO fail to take into account the limitations of that under EIR regulation 18(4) via which the FOIA pseudonym bar such as it is and even if relevant at all does not apply to EIR complaints anyway. In any case that is a matter between me and the ICO regarding the right to bring a complaint to them, and does not provide you with a valid reason for refusal and does not remove your obligations under EIR.
Please internal review your handling of my EIR requests here of 08/08/2024, and if you are to maintain your refusal to provide the information please provide EIR compliant reasons, also please also fully and carefully clarify your position on the claims you have made here as discussed in my further message of 01/10/2024, and I yet again ask for reasons and evidence in support of your claim of pseudonym for which I have never received even a hint.
If I recall correctly your pseudonym claims first started when I made an information request regarding Birkenhead market.
Coincidentally I have been reading with interest the unrelated internal audit investigation report on the Birkenhead market referral and what it says about the handling of information requests.
https://democracy.wirral.gov.uk/ecSDDisp...
Separately it remains a shame that the audio of the audit and risk committee cuts out on the discussion of removing persistent regular cross angry and upset frequent flyers who make information requests and advertise those requests on whatdotheyknow https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/r...
A full history of my EIR request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/e...
Yours faithfully,
John Jones
Dear Sir
Please see email of today's date sent to request-1205413-d3faad06.
Yours faithfully
Lynette Paterson
Principal Information Governance Officer
══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
From: [FOI #1156424 email]
Sent: 09/01/2025 19:51
To: [Wirral Borough Council request email]
Subject: Internal review of Freedom of Information request - EIR request -
Birkenhead Town Hall planning permission air conditioning, part 2
(Attachments:) Email from [FOI #1156424 email] - Internal review of
Freedom of Information request - EIR request - Birkenhead Town Hall
planning permission air conditioning, part 2.txt, Email (original message)
from [FOI #1156424 email] received on 09/01/2025.eml
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended
solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender
immediately.
Dear Lynette Paterson,
As has happened a number of times with your responses in the past you have included a bad link.
I assume you meant to link this
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/e...
I am unable to properly consider the contents of your duplicated Refusal Notice against the referenced requests of mine until you re-issue it correcting your failures within it to comply with the EIR requirements for Refusal Notices.
Under EIR Regulation 14(2) your Refusal Notice should have been issued as soon as possible and no later than 20 working days after the date of receipt of each request.
Putting aside the validity of the Refusal Notice at all against that delay, you have anyway in your balancing assessment for each request not specified that you have not taken into account matters beyond 20 working days after the relevant request.
And since those requests were not all made at the same time the balancing assessments should differ rather than being duplicated in a single letter.
Your Refusal Notice also does not comply with EIR Regulation 14(5)(a) or 15(5)(b) as it is required to.
Please re-issue EIR compliant Refusal Notices for these requests.
Only once you have done so will I be able to properly consider their contents which among other matters I see currently includes no reference in the balancing assessment to your incorrect reliance upon pseudonym claims for responding to EIR requests and for the ICO powers, and anyway also for my FOI requests your failure to give me any information at all on your reasons for suspecting pseudonym despite repeated requests.
Separately please ensure by way of complaint validly presented here to you as a representative of the council, that the task force set up to review the handling of information complaints as a result of the recent birkenhead market report receives a link to this entire thread on whatdotheyknow and to my history of requests so that their work is fully informed
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/user/john...
Yours sincerely,
John Jones
We work to defend the right to FOI for everyone
Help us protect your right to hold public authorities to account. Donate and support our work.
Donate Now
Erebus Smith AKA Alan Featherstone left an annotation ()
Hi JJ,
I follow your FOI’s with interest and can’t help thinking the Council’s attitude towards you is linked to what was said at the Audit & Risk Management Committee meeting. The relevant bit is 2 hours into the meeting, just scroll to Item 10 and press play. Sound is terrible, but stick with it for ten minutes, it’s enlightening .
https://democracy.wirral.gov.uk/ieListDo...
Below is an email I sent to all Councillors expressing my displeasure.. I also sent a complaint to the ICO
Cheers
Erebus Smith AKA Alan Featherstone
This email was initially intended for the Members of the Audit & Risk Management (A&RM) Committee. However, I realise that there is a broader audience, as many Members and their constituents have used Freedom of Information requests as a legitimate means to verify information.
I’m writing regarding the Freedom of Information discussions conducted during the recent Audit & Risk Management (A&RM) Committee meeting and the consequences of the newly devised scheme mentioned by Jill Travers (JT), the Director of Law & Corporate Governance.
JT told Members “We are taking action to remove or mitigate persistent information requesters” - “many advertise their requests on the WhatDoTheyKnow website” - “I call them Frequent Flyers” - they are generally “people (who are) cross or angry at a Council decision”.
Personally, I don’t think I could do this campaign work if I was “cross or angry”, however, I’m sure it helps the Officer’s argument to paint all campaigners as “Cross & Angry individuals” to Members.
I respectfully suggest that the Senior Officer’s approach undermines the spirit of the Council’s Constitution and the Freedom of Information Act, it really isn’t constructive.
Wouldn’t it be more productive for Senior Officers and Members to investigate the underlying reasons for the multiple FOI requests, rather than covertly encouraging everyone in the Council—from Members to Junior Officers—to adopt an adversarial stance when interacting with the public?
It’s quite easy to explain multiple FOI’s regarding Birkenhead Market Traders. There are multiple examples of proven wrongdoing and valid suspicions that others are continuing. Traders find it impossible to trust information coming out of the Regeneration Directorate and have little choice but to make FOI’s as Officers of the Regeneration Directorate have refused to disclose information when it’s asked for as “business as usual” (BAU) format.
I’ll give just one obvious and well known example of wrongdoing and how it was brought to light by an FOI, and then move on to JT’s view of the WhatDoTheyKnow platform.
At ERH 27 March Marcus Shaw Interim Director of Regeneration stated to Council Members,
"Taking up ClIr Kelly's point, I respectfully disagree, in that work has been developed in the context of feasibility and that's on the bases that we've been through a process set to industry standards which includes Design Costs, Architect Fees, Structural Surveys to make sure we got an evidence based approach to how we put this (Argos) recommendation forwards, and that is a critical point we have done an evidence based bringing in industry experts," - "to make sure the Committee has transparency in approach to make the informed decision, and that is the critical point."
Marcus Shaw "There is asbestos in the Market that is primarily in the roof void"
CIr Gardner, Question "it's in the roof void, so it's insulation?"
Marcus Shaw, I believe it's actually in the roof, the integrity of the roof, what you can see on the roof is partly made of asbestos."
ClIr Gardner, "It's concrete laden asbestos concrete on the roof?"
Marcus Shaw, "Yes I believe so."
ClIr Gardner, "Have we got a report on that?"
Marcus Shaw, "We have asbestos reports that were undertaken along with errr structural engineer's reports"
Traders lookup, and what do they see? A STEEL ROOF!
I was asked to submit an FOI for the reports Mr Shaw had referred to. It took 32 working days (not the 20 working days stipulated in the FOI Act) to receive the Birkenhead Market Asbestos Report, 2019.
The Asbestos Report states the only asbestos on the roof of Birkenhead Market is enclosed in 6 aircon ducts/flues. The roof of Birkenhead Market is not made of asbestos and traders believe Mr Shaw’s words scuppered any slim chance of a refurbishment of the current market.
Question 1: As a Member, are you “cross or angry” that (at best) a fellow member was misled?
Question 2: What would you do if your livelihood was unfairly threatened by someone in a position of trust?
Question 3: Would you verify everything he and his colleagues are telling you?
Question 4: Why are FOI responses from the Regeneration Directorate consistently overdue?
Question 5: Would it happen to tie in with JT’s said “they’re cross and angry at a process the Council are going through and they go away when the process is finished”
Question 6: Are the Regeneration Directorate following a corporate policy of delaying responses to FOI’s. One could call it the “Kick The Can Down The Road Policy”.
Moving on to the WhatDoTheyKnow, platform..
The Director of Law & Governance JT is of the opinion that the “cross & angry” - “persistent FOI requesters” - That she likes to label “Frequent Flyers” who “advertise their requests on the WhatDoTheyKnow website”. She is incorrect, there is no facility to advertise.
FOI requests are posted on the WhatDoTheyKnow platform, they forwards them to the relevant Local Authority. The Local Authority then send their response to the requester via the same platform.
Speaking of advertising on WhatDoTheyKnow.
Ironically, Wirral Borough Council generated a lot of interest when they published seven identical FOI rejection notices on the WhatDoTheyKnow platform.
Below is a copy of the response I posted on all seven FOI’s or you could randomly follow one of the links to the WhatDoTheyKnow platform, and check out any one of those seven requests in full…It’s worth a visit if you’ve never been..
Cheers
Alan Featherstone
PS. If you would like any clarification or have any questions or comments, don’t hesitate to get in touch, via email or 07495535583.
PPS. Ironically, it was a Senior Officer who originally told me to use WhatDoTheyKnow because he felt we were being fobbed off.
Dear Information Team.
Please commence an internal review of the Council’s decision to invoke section 12 (4) FOAI and reject eight information requests mentioned in your previous email.
Items numbered One to Six below are relevant to each and every individual Internal Review requests.
Items A to G are relevant to individual Information Requests that have been refused under section 12.
1: The Council claim the eight information requests submitted within the last 60 working days exceed the appropriate limit of £450/18.5 hours. Am I missing something? I only see seven requests listed not eight,
2: Four of requests were OVERDUE on the date the rejection letter was issued 18 October.
A: Argos Market Consultation Document Part Two. 140 WORKING DAYS OVERDUE.
B: Minutes Of Meetings Conducted Between BMTA & Council Officers since 1 April. 38 WORKING DAYS OVERDUE
C: Raymond Lynch, His Companies And Consultation Responsibilities. 33 WORKING DAYS OVERDUE
D: WBC Enforce Decline Of Market By Raising Vacant Rents 50%. 14 WORKING DAYS OVERDUE.
These information requests remain active because the Council has not responded within the 20 working days mandated by the Freedom of Information Act. It is unacceptable for the Council to group these requests together in calculations as a means to remove them from the active information request list. Using the removal of active information requests as a strategy to manipulate the Council’s FOI results submitted to the ICO, and to mitigate its responsibility to respond to legitimate FOI requests, is highly inappropriate.
3: Of the remaining three requests.
E: Trader Consultation Birkenhead Market Report 2024 Redacted, was made because there is genuine concern that a document disclosed in a previous FOI has been fraudulently produced.(see item E)
F: Expressions of Interest Exercise was originally a business as usual request that the Council insisted had to be an FOI. All the documents were produced by one notetaker who was willing to redact trader names and send it over. Little expense there.(See item F)
G: Revised Principles Of Consultation 2018 is asking for a link to a website that the Council have confirmed they have knowledge of. No expense there then. (See item G)
4: The Council accepted the six Information Requests submitted 15 March, 7 August, 13 August, 9 September, 25 September & 2 October. However, it was only when request numbered 7 “Revised Principles Of Consultation 2018” was submitted on 18 October that the Council felt these requests would exceed £450/18.5 hours. Request numbers 7 (the straw that broke the camels back) requests a link to a website “the Council does hold information on” Wouldn't it have been just as easy to send the link?
5: The Council claim that eight? information requests submitted within the last 60 working days would exceed the appropriate limit of £450/18.5 hours. However, the Council fail to comply with section 16 FOIA requirements which state..If you refuse a request under section 12, you will have to provide advice to the applicant. The objective of the advice and assistance is to help the applicant make a new, refined request which doesn’t exceed the appropriate limit.
It’d be really awesome if you sent this advice over before we all age by another 20 working days…….please.
6: ICO guidance states.. “You need to be careful not to take a superficial approach when looking for similarities between requests”. The Council state “all relate to the subject of Birkenhead Market.” I would like to emphasise that each request appears to have only a superficial connection to Birkenhead Market; however, it would be more fitting for Senior Officers to recognise that these requests are fundamentally linked to genuine concerns regarding the conduct within the Regeneration Directorate.
7: At Wirral Borough Council’s Audit & Risk Management Committee meeting on 18 October (item 10, 1 hour 30 minutes into recording).The Director Of Law and Corporate Governance Jill Travers states “We are taking action to remove or mitigate - persistent information requesters who I call frequent flyers”.
I respectfully suggest that the rejection of my information requests is a result of the Director of Law and Corporate Governance's recently introduced and questionable practice of "removing or mitigating persistent information requests." She refers to these members of the public as "Frequent Flyers."
https://democracy.wirral.gov.uk/ieListDo...
BELOW..Items A to G are relevant to individual Information Requests that have been refused under section 12.
A: Argos Market Consultation Document Part Two.
Please commence an internal review of the section 12 decision and continue with the internal review request dated 3 October.
SUBJECT Claimed consultation regarding Argos Market
Request date 15 March 2024.
160 working days ago & 140 working days OVERDUE.
This request was made because Officers falsely claimed stakeholder consultation had been conducted with Market traders. The Council have failed to disclose any legitimate consultation information documents requested. Follow link to original claim of consultation….. And check Item E which speculates that a document was fraudulently produced.
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/a...
The Argos Market Consultation Document Part Two request was not made within the specified 60 working days.
Is it possible this tactic is part of the Director of Law & Corporate Governance’s new strategy to “Remove & mitigate “Frequent Flyers” requests?
Or maybe someone needs SpeckSavers, after all, 60 is only 1 digit away from 160
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/a...
B: Minutes Of Meetings Conducted Between BMTA & Council Officers since 1 April.
Please commence an internal review of the section 12 decision and continue with the internal review request dated 6 September regarding the fact this request is overdue.
SUBJECT Minutes of general meetings regarding current market.
Request date 7 August 2024,
58 working days ago & 38 working days OVERDUE.
My family business rents 10% of the rented stall area in Birkenhead Market. Mr Shaw has excluded us from these representative meetings, but in the past we have been furnished with minutes. The minutes to these meetings should be freely available to all traders and it is not understood why Officers are being so secretive.
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/m...
C: Raymond Lynch, His Companies And Consultation Responsibilities.
Please commence an internal review of the section 12 decision and continue with the internal review request dated 2 October.
SUBJECT Contractor’s responsibility to consult or not with stakeholders.
Request date 13 August.
53 working days ago & 33 working days OVERDUE.
The request was initiated due to the consultant engaged at the market denying the occurrence of any consultations and, in addition, providing contradictory information to various individual market traders.
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/r...
D: WBC Enforce Decline Of Market By Raising Vacant Rents 50%
Please commence an internal review of the section 12 decision and begin an internal review regarding the lack of a timely response.
SUBRECT. Officer & Member Conduct regarding vacant rent increases..
Request date 9 September 2024.
34 working day ago & 14 working days Overdue.
This is a historic request for information to understand why Officers decided to increase vacant stall rents by 40% in October 2021. The trader numbers at that time were dwindling and the massive increase in vacant stall rents had a disastrous effect on trading conditions.
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/w...
E: Trader Consultation Birkenhead Market Report 2024 Redacted.
Please commence an internal review of the section 12 decision and begin an internal review regarding the fact that a response is now overdue.
SUBJECT Document disclosed in previous request.
Follow link to the bottom of three documents.
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/a...
Request date 25 September.
17 working day old request on the date of the rejection letter. It would now be OVERDUE.
This request was made in order to understand the provenance of a document disclosed by the Council in response to the information request entitled Argos Market Consultation Document Part Two (item A). It is suspected the document has been fraudulently produced and the request seeks to understand the chronology of its creation..
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/t...
F: Expressions of Interest Exercise.
Please commence an internal review of the section 12 decision, and begin an internal review regarding the fact that a response is now overdue.
SUBJECT. Argos Market
Original request date 27 September
15 working day old request on the date of the rejection letter. It would now be OVERDUE.
Request date via WhatDoTheyKnow 2 October.
Following my interview with a consultant retained by the Council, I requested all the working notes with personal information redacted.. The request was originally made by email as a Business as Usual (BAU) request with the caveat that if BaU was rejected email to be treated as FOI.
Council’s response
“Hi Alan.. Please accept my apologies for the delay in responding.”
“I made a request to allow me to send details of Trader EOI meeting notes to you, it has been confirmed I am unable to do this nor can I accept your email as a FOI request. In order to request the information you will need to complete the FOI request via the council website”.
The Council refused to supply the information even though it was all compiled by one “note taker” and is therefore all held in one location. Traders have stated they have been given conflicting information at these meetings. Additionally, I understand that refusing to accept an FOI request via email also breached ICO rules.
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/e...
G: Revised Principles Of Consultation 2018.
Please commence an internal review section 12 decision.
SUBJECT. Website link request.
Request date 18 October 2024. 5 working days ago. Will become overdue 13 November.
The straw that broke the camel’s back merely asked for the link to a website where the Council posted consultation results. In their refusal response the Council state.. “the Council does hold information on this matter” Wouldn’t it have been easier to send a link to the website? Or are Wirral Borough Council content to pursue the Director Of Law and Corporate Governance’s dubious scheme to “removing or mitigating “- “Frequent Flyers”- “persistent information requesters”
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/r...