Dear Sheffield City Council,

At two meetings of full Council (23rd July, 2015 & 3rd February, 2016), Deputy Leader of the Council – Cllr Leigh Bramall - has confirmed that the £2.2 bn Amey PFI contract contract permits 50% of highway trees to be felled. When SCCs Head of Highway Maintenance – Steve Robinson - was interviewed in 2012 by The Chartered Institution of Highways & Transportation, they reported that Amey will fell 18,000 street trees (50%): http://www.ciht.org.uk/download.cfm/doci...

27,000 of Sheffield’s highway trees (75%) are mature and as such are particularly vulnerable to damage that results from reckless and negligent acts and omissions. It is very clear from evidence in the letter from Save Our Roadside Trees campaigners to the Cabinet Member for Environment & Transport (Cllr Fox) - available online at: http://www.savesheffieldtrees.org.uk/res... and at: https://ianswalkonthewildside.wordpress.... ) - that Amey have scheduled many of these trees for felling on the basis that their planing machine and digging machinery will cause such severe damage to trees that they will become DANGEROUS (one of the 6Ds), as decay is expected to follow and it is thought structural integrity will be compromised.

As SORT indicate, compliance with current good practice guidance and recommendations, which the Streets Ahead team claim to comply with (such as National Joint Utilities Group Guidance and British Standard 5837: 2012), would ensure that such damage is avoided and would enable mature highway trees to be safely retained, long term, without unacceptable compromise to structural integrity.
At the meeting of full Council, on 3rd February, 2016, Cllr Bramall claimed that Amey would only fell 5,000 highway trees. The same day, the Council Tweeted that 14% of trees would be felled ( https://twitter.com/SheffCouncil ). When Cllr Bramall was asked why he believed this to be the case, he Tweeted: “coz only trees that fall under ‘6 ds’ are replaced”
( https://twitter.com/SaveSheffTrees/statu... ). Many of Sheffield’s 27,000 mature highway trees, if not most, are being classed as DAMAGING, DISCRIMINATORY or DANGEROUS for associated damage to kerbs and footways (pavements).

As a matter of immediate priority, PLEASE PROVIDE FULL WORK CONTACT DETAILS - name, job title, postal address, e-mail, direct telephone number and mobile telephone number (NOT the Streets Ahead telephone number) -for the Sheffield City Council Officers/personnel MOST DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE for:

a) MONITORING highway works in close proximity to trees;

b) ON SITE SUPERVISION of highway works in close proximity to trees;

c) AUDITING of highway works in close proximity to trees;

d) ENFORCEMENT of compliance with current good practice guidance and recommendations for highway works in close proximity to trees.

On 19th February, 2016, Sheffield’s Labour Party stated: “We are open and transparent with the Sheffield public ensuring all relevant information is available and in the public domain”.

I have tried, unsuccessfully, for a month, to get answers to these questions from:

CLLR FOX
(Cabinet Member for Environment & Transport [Labour]: [email address] );

STEVE ROBINSON
(SCCs disgraced Head of Highway Maintenance http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/listen-she... : [email address] )

SIMON GREEN
(SCC Executive Director of Place Management Team: [email address] );

DAVID CAULFIELD
(SCC Director of Development Services: “with overall responsibility for highway trees”; http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/trees-new-... : [email address] );

DAVID WAIN
(leader of SCC’s Environmental Maintenance Technical Team: [email address] );

JAMES WINTERS
(SCC’s Environmental Technical Advisory Team member for the Streets Ahead team: [email address] );

GRAEME SYMONDS
(Core Investment Project Account Director for the Streets Ahead project)

JONATHAN SKILL
(Amey’s Principal Operations Manager Customer Services);

DAVID NEEDHAM
(SCC’s Principle Manager For New Works: Manager of the team providing technical expertise for New Works delivered through the Streets Ahead Contract: [email address] )

FIRST POINT
(SCC’s information point at Howden House, Sheffield)

ALL of the above have neglected to provide the information requested, despite repeated requests over the past month. Today (29th February, 2016), Cllr Fox stated: “Unfortunately we have a injunction served on the Council,Therefore all officers are deployed on this Legal issue…”, implying that the Council do not have any Officers whatsoever available to do the aforementioned tasks. However, that is not adequate reason not to provide the information requested. The injunction has been in place since 5th February, 2016: http://www.hortweek.com/three-month-repr... . As I understand it, the injunction relates to the Council’s inappropriate felling survey issued to residents of individual affected streets; the abuse and misuse of the Independent Tree Panel and non-compliance with relevant legislation cited in the aforementioned SORT letter: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-... .

I look forward to a prompt response that includes full, complete, detailed answers.

Yours faithfully,

Mr Long

Dear Sheffield City Council Information Management Officer (Mark Knight),

Please provide a detailed, precise explanation of how and why you believe freedom of information request 1599 to be “vexatious”. Also, please note that the hyperlink that you have provided takes me to a Sheffield City Council web-page with the title: “Contact Streets Ahead”. Your “get lost” response to my request states:

“Any enquiries related to highway trees and related works should be made via the contact details
available at: [1]https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/roads/about ...
(AS THIS INFORMATION IS ACCESSIBLE BY OTHER MEANS it is exempt…).”

Your implication is that I can gain access to the information requested, by contacting the Streets Ahead team (Amey). Please confirm whether or not this is what you believe. Furthermore, you state that the information requested is accessible “by other means”. Please state which means, and provide full detail of how, where, when and in what formats the information can be accessed by the public. Please ensure that you include freely available, widely recognised and commonly used formats.

Please remember that that Amey are the provider of “customer services” to the £2.2bn Streets Ahead project (using up to £1.2bn from the Department for Transport). Amey also undertake all highway inspection duties; they supervise their own works, handle all customer complaints about the project, including those addressed to the Council, and undertake all highway works, including the installation of street lighting (including bad practice such as trenching in close proximity to mature trees with machinery and installing lighting columns without regard for site constraints such as tree roots, stems, branches and foliage) and resurfacing works (including excavations with machinery in close proximity to mature highway trees – publicly owned and privately owned) throughout the city. In short, asking them to supply such information is like asking a criminal to investigate his own crime. Amey are even permitted to conduct their own investigations of “complaints” made against them, unsupervised by the Council, using their own guidance, methods, techniques and protocols, without sharing any detail, whatsoever, of these with the public or the Council (assuming they even exist), and without publishing a report once investigation is complete.

ON 23RD FEBRUARY, 2016 I E-MAILED THE CONTENT OF THIS REQUEST TO THE STREETS AHEAD TEAM, USING THE E-MAIL ADDRESS THAT IS PROVIDED ON THE WEB-PAGE THAT YOUR RESPONSE HAS DIRECTED ME TO: [email address] . IT IS NOW A MONTH LATER AND I AM STILL WAITING FOR A RESPONSE. As you can see from my request, I have contacted a number of Streets Ahead people. I contacted Mr Symonds and Mr Skill by using the [email address] e-mail address. A number of the people that I have contacted requesting the same information - Mr Robinson, Mr Caulfield, Mr Wain, Mr Winters, Mr Symonds – have all been presented before the public as “experts” at Cllr Fox’s (Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport: Labour) “bi-monthly” Highway Tree Advisory forum (which had its second meeting – the latest meeting – on 2nd September, 2015), where they sit on the forum panel.

To date, however, NOT ONE OF THE PEOPLE THAT I HAVE CONTACTED HAS PROVIDED THE INFORMATION REQUESTED, even though I have requested it, in some cases, multiple times. Instead, my communications have largely gone without a response of any kind (which is why it was necessary to re-submit requests). On the few occasions where a brief response has been provided, the request has been totally ignored and failed to mention or provide the information requested.

I e-mailed the request to Cllr Fox on 15th February, 2016). The response I received came on 4th March, 2016:
“Many thanks for your comments they have been noted, when I receive a response I will be back in touch.”

On 29th February I still hadn’t received any further communication, so I contacted him again. Cllr Fox responded the same day (the errors are not mine):
“Hi Mr Long
Unfortunately we have a injunction served on the Council,Therefore all officers are deployed on this Legal issue, we will get a reply to you shortly.”

It is almost a month later and neither Cllr Fox or anyone else has provided the information requested. Disturbingly, Cllr Fox’s response indicates that even before the Council got involved with a legal case (on 5th February, 2016, I believe), staffing was woefully inadequate and grossly insufficient to provide the manpower necessary to undertake the duties mentioned in my request and to provide an adequate level of service provision. The implication is that SINCE EARLY FEBRUARY, 2016, SHEFFIELD CITY COUNCIL HAS NOT HAD ANY PERSONNEL AVAILABLE TO FULFIL ANY OF THE TASKS MENTIONED IN MY REQUEST, even though the city-wide Streets Ahead project is a fully funded £2.2bn project and 75% of highway trees (27,000) are mature and thus particularly vulnerable to damage caused by wilful or reckless acts or omissions.

On 3rd February, 2016, at the meeting of full Council, in response to the Nether Edge petition, Sheffield City Council “resolved” to:
“COMMIT TO BE OPEN AND TRANSPARENT WITH THE SHEFFIELD PUBLIC IN ENSURING ALL OUR INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN.”

On the 19th February, 2016, Sheffield’s Labour Party stated:
“We are open and transparent with the Sheffield public ensuring ALL relevant information is available and in the public domain”.
Source: http://www.laboursheffield.org.uk/sheffi...

MY REQUEST IS FAR FROM VEXATIOUS. I HAVE DONE ALL THAT CAN BE REASONABLY EXPECTED OF AN AVERAGE CITIZEN IN ATTEMPTING TO GAIN ACCESS TO THE INFORMATION THAT I HAVE REQUESTED, and more, prior to submission of the freedom of information request. If the Council is genuinely as under resourced as Cllr Fox has implied, then making the information that I have requested (full contact details) available to the public should be regarded as an immediate priority, so that volunteers can step in to help achieve the tasks. There is ample evidence, city-wide to indicate continued, repeated, non-compliance with a range of current good “industry” good practice guidance, recommendations and policy commitments, by Amey, when undertaking highway works in close proximity to trees: see the SORT letters available at https://www.stocksbridgecommunity.org/ne...

This request is of particular importance to me because Amey used a mechanical digger to excavate a deep hole within 33cm of the primary stem of my twenty-five year old rowan tree, with roots left exposed, unprotected, for four days, from 11th to 15th February. For the duration of works, at NO stage was there any evidence whatsoever of compliance with any of the national good practice guidance and recommendations mentioned in the aforementioned SORT letters, which both the Streets Ahead team and Amey have repeatedly claimed to comply with. Nor has there been any evidence whatsoever of adequate, appropriate, supervision, monitoring or enforcement at any stage during works, by Amey or the Council. There has not been any evidence of arboricultural input or supervision at any stage of planning or works. Furthermore, when I have e-mailed the Streets Ahead team, the bulk of my communications have been ignored and NONE of the information that I have requested from them has ever been made available or provided to me.

In short, by referring me to Streets Ahead, as your response appears to do, you are obstructing access to information, promulgating obscurity, inconsistency, errors, dishonesty, unaccountability, inequality and unfairness. Mr Caulfield also instructed me to contact Streets Ahead, commenting:
“Any other issues can be raised through the normal contact channels”.

Mr Caulfield never stated what those channels were, but my response to his comment is equally applicable to your advice that I contact Streets Ahead:
“Those ‘normal contact channels’ have failed to provide an adequate level of service and care, and ALL my requests for information, my suggestions, advice and objections have been TOTALLY IGNORED. THAT IS WHY I CONTACTED YOU."

On 19th February, 2016, the information commissioner recently completed an investigation (Case Reference Number FS50596905) in to a previous Freedom of Information request response issued by Sheffield City Council (request reference – FOI / 422, dated 6th July, 2015). It revealed that even though the Streets Ahead project is over three years in to a five year programme of highway resurfacing, lighting and felling, neither Amey or the Streets Ahead team have ever commissioned or draughted any ALTERNATIVE HIGHWAY ENGINEERING SPECIFICATIONS FOR FOOTWAY, EDGING (KERB) OR DRAIN CONSTRUCTION that could enable the safe long-term retention of mature highway trees (27,000 trees: 75% of the population), without unacceptable compromise to tree health or structural integrity.

This is important because previously, all those involved with the Streets Ahead project have indicated that felling is a last resort. Without adequate, appropriate, supervision, monitoring or enforcement during highway works, and without alternative HIGHWAY ENGINEERING SPECIFICATIONS, such a claim is certainly NOT true. The Information Commissioner stated:
“Assessment of suitability/lack of suitability for engineering solutions is made during a “walk and build” process by Amey.
[…]
The team carrying out this “walk and build” hold detailed discussions at site level, considering and debating any and all potential engineering solutions which may be utilised to retain each specific tree, considering the council’s legislative requirements, inclusive mobility and how they can construct the new road surface, however THE DECISION MAKING PROCESS AND RATIONALE FOR THE DECISION IS NOT RECORDED.”

These comments indicate that the Streets Ahead team cannot be trusted to be open, honest, transparent and fair in their communications with the public. The force of an Act of Parliament, such as the Freedom of Information Act is, evidently, necessary, in order for citizens to gain access to the truth.

On 9th June, 2015, in reference to the trees on Rustlings Rd The Star reported:
“Amey says the trees need to be removed as they are damaging the road and replacements will be planted.
Coun Fox said: ‘…I have agreed to take the ideas that the group had back to discuss with the Streets Ahead team and local ward councillors… I want to explore all options to see if any of them would allow the remaining 11 trees to be retained.
Once all the options have been explored and they have been investigated we will then make a final decision about these trees.’ ”
Source: http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/another-me...

On 23rd July, 2015, at the inaugural meeting of the Highway Trees Advisory Forum (HTAF), Steve Robinson (SCC Head of Highway Maintenance) commented:
“So, just because a tree is diseased doesn’t mean to say that that tree needs to be replaced. …IF AN ENGINEERING SOLUTION CAN BE APPLIED, THEN IT WILL BE APPLIED. Err, there was a lots of comment made earlier on about whether a tree is removed as a last resort; and a tree is removed as a LAST resort.”

“So, just to give you a summary of where we are today, there’s been 2,563 highway trees removed because they met one of the 6Ds and there was NO OTHER RECTIFICATION that we could carry out.”

In a letter dated 18th November, 2015, David Caulfield (SCC Director of Regeneration and Development & former Head of Planning) stated:
“…REMOVAL OF ANY HIGHWAY TREE IS ALWAYS THE LAST RESORT…”

In an e-mail dated 10th December, 2015, Cllr Nasima Akther (Labour) communicated “on be-half of Nether edge Councillors”:
“I can advise that every single tree fell is…independently verified outside of Amey by the Council’s own qualified highways engineers and arboricultural inspectors in order to ensure that any tree works prescribed are PROPORTIONATE, required and that NO SUITABLE ALTERNATIVES OR REASONABLY PRACTICABLE ENGINEERING SOLUTIONS EXIST.”

In an e-mail (Ref: 101002355831) dated 16th December, 2015, Jeremy Willis (Amey Streets Ahead Operations Manager) stated:
“Unlike many other large UK cities, Sheffield is in a unique position and HAS THE FUNDING through the Streets Ahead project to upgrade its roads, pavements, street lights and streetscene. This also includes BETTER MAINTENANCE AND MANAGEMENT of the street trees.

THIS REQUEST IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE IT IS NECESSARY FOR CITIZENS TO HAVE THE INFORMATION IF THE STREETS AHEAD TEAM ARE TO BE ACCOUNTABLE FOR DAMAGE CAUSED TO VALUABLE COMMUNITY ASSETS: MATURE HIGHWAY TREES AND THE RANGE OF VALUABLE ECOSYSTEM SERVICE BENEFITS THAT THEY AFFORD TO THE ENVIRONMENT AND COMMUNITIES.

ON 8TH JULY, 2015, STREETS AHEAD TEAM STATED:
“ALL WORKS WILL BE SUPERVISED BY A QUALIFIED ARBORICULTURALIST [SIC] TO ENSURE NO TREE ROOT DAMAGE OCCURS AS PART OF OUR WORKS. THE STREETS AHEAD TEAM WORK TO NATIONAL JOINT UTILITIES GROUP (NJUG) REGULATIONS AND RELEVANT BRITISH STANDARDS FOR CONSTRUCTION WORKS IN THE VICINITY OF TREES”.

• In a communication dated 8th January, 2016, with regard to works to and in close proximity to highway trees, Mr Caulfield responded to the question: “Can you provide evidence of the use of National Best Practice?”. His response was:
“Yes, we can evidence use of NBP across the whole contract”

• In an e-mail dated 8th January, 2016, Streets Ahead Customer Services stated:
“THE STREETS AHEAD PROJECT AIMS TO WORK TO BEST INDUSTRY PRACTISE AND GUIDELINES IN ALL WORKING SECTORS, including when working in the vicinity of highway trees.”
“IN FACT, WE INTEND TO EXPAND THE CONCEPT…improving our processes and BUILDING ON INDUSTRY GOOD PRACTISE.”

• The response to Freedom of Information request FOI / 574, dated 7th August, 2015 (“Please provide a copy of the current national highway maintenance standards, guidance and recommendations that the Streets Ahead project claim to be using and working in accordance with; please also provide an online link to these standards.”), stated:

“Highways maintenance standards and requirements are dictated by a number of pieces of both industry best practice (for example the Well-Maintained Highways Code of Practice for highway maintenance management - http://www.ukroadsliaisongroup.org/en/UK... ).

PLEASE RESPOND WITHOUT ANY FURTHER DELAY, AS A MATTER OF IMMEDIATE PRIORITY.

Yours sincerely,

Mr Long

Dear FOI,

Previously, in an e-mail dated 2nd March, 2016, sent in a response to a later FOI request submitted by SCC, for information identical to that submitted in my request, Sheffield City Council’s Information Management Officer – Mark Knight – stated:

“WE WILL ONLY BE PROCESSING THIS REQUEST UNDER FOIA AND NOT UNDER ‘A GENERAL ENQUIRY’ AS WE BELIEVE FOIA IS THE APPROPRIATE AND LEGAL MECHANISM FOR CONSIDERATION OF YOUR REQUEST”.

Please note that although the refusal to this freedom of information request states: “THIS INFORMATION IS ACCESSIBLE BY OTHER MEANS it is exempt…)”, you should be aware that previously, two separate Council departments (First Point and Enforcement, both at Howden House, Sheffield), directed me to present this request to David Needham (the SCC’s principle Manager For New Works: Manager of the Highways PFI Client Team, providing technical expertise for New Works delivered through the Streets Ahead Contract). I was informed that his team were responsible for everything to do with the £2.2bn, city-wide Streets Ahead project. The highway works in close proximity to my privately owned mature tree were to install a new street lighting column. I live at the dead-end end of a dead-end street that has never had a street light this far along the road on the 45 years or so that the road has existed.

Accordingly, I e-mailed the request to Mr Needham on 29th February, 2016:
From: Long
Sent: 29 February 2016 10:49
To: '[email address]'
Subject: URGENT_HIGHWAYS_WORKS_MONITORING_ON-SITE SUPERVISION_AUDITING_ENFORCEMENT_OPENNESS_HONESTY_TRANSPARENCY
Importance: High

Dear Mr Needham,

On 26th February, 2016, I visited Howden House to ask the questions below. I asked at the First Point reception desk. The lady didn’t have the information. She advised that I telephone the Enforcement department (Tel: 273 6677), which I did. The enforcement man did not have the answers either. He advised that I contact you – the Principle Manager For New Works. He said you were responsible for the client team for the Amey PFI contract and that he believed the tasks detailed below are the responsibility of Officers in your team. I telephoned you from Howden House (Tel: 205 7421), at about 4:30pm, but nobody answered the telephone.

In my part of the city, there have been numerous contraventions of good practice guidance by Amey when working in close proximity to trees. As a result, one of my trees has been negatively affected. As a matter of immediate priority, please provide full work contact details - name, job title, postal address, e-mail, direct telephone number and mobile telephone number (not the Streets Ahead telephone number) -for the Sheffield City Council Officers/personnel most directly responsible for:

a) MONITORING highway works in close proximity to trees;
b) on site supervision of highway works in close proximity to trees;
c) AUDITING of highway works in close proximity to trees;
d) ENFORCEMENT of compliance with current good practice guidance and recommendations for highway works in close proximity to trees.

I have tried to get answers to these questions from Cllr Fox, Steve Robinson, David Wain and the Streets Ahead team, but all of them have neglected to respond.

On 19th February, 2016, Sheffield’s Labour Party stated: “We are open and transparent with the Sheffield public ensuring all relevant information is available and in the public domain”.

Please also send me a copy of the Arboricultural Method Statement (BS 5837:2012) that the Streets Ahead team are supposed to use during the installation of street lighting when working in close proximity to trees. Please also let me know what steps you have taken, if any, or intend to take to ensure that the Council’s acts and omissions are adequate enough to ensure that highway works in close proximity to trees comply with the aforementioned guidance and recommendations, so as to help ensure that the same reckless and negligent acts and omissions that have occurred on my road are not repeated elsewhere in the city.

Yours sincerely,

Mr Long
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Mr Needham did not respond. Instead, 2nd March, 2016, I received the following e-mail:
From: Cowen Stacey (CEX) [ mailto:[email address] ] On Behalf Of FOI
Sent: 02 March 2016 14:39
To: Long
Subject: Re – Freedom of Information Request – Reference – FOI / 1601

Re – Freedom of Information Request – Reference – FOI / 1601

Dear Long

Thank you for your recent request for information relating to Request for contact details of highways staff and Arboricultural Method Statement re: street lighting and trees which we received on 29/02/2016

This has been logged as a Freedom of Information Request, and will be dealt with under the Freedom of Information Act. The reference number for your request can be found above.

The Freedom of Information Act states that we must respond to you within 20 working days, therefore, you should expect to hear a response from us by 30/03/2016.

In the meantime, if you have any queries please contact us on the number below.

Thank you.

Yours sincerely,

Resources Business Support
Moorfoot Level 8 West Wing
Sheffield S1 4PL
Tel : OII4 2O 5347B
E-mail : FOI @sheffield.gov.uk
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The response informed me that Mr Needham (SCC) had converted my enquiry to a Freedom of Information request: Reference – FOI / 1601. The same day, by e-mail, I instructed the FOI department as follows:
From: Long
Sent: 02 March 2016 18:23
To: FOI
Subject: RE: Re – Freedom of Information Request – Reference – FOI / 1601
Importance: High

Dear FOI Team,

Please withdraw and delete Freedom of Information Request – Reference – FOI / 1601.

My e-mail to the Highways PFI Client Team was NOT a FOI request. It was a general enquiry.

Yours Sincerely,

Mr Long
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The response I received is reproduced here, in its entirety. Please note the wording of the penultimate paragraph, as it contradicts your assertion, in your refusal, that:

“THIS INFORMATION IS ACCESSIBLE BY OTHER MEANS it is exempt”.

From: Knight Mark (CEX) [mailto:[email address]] On Behalf Of FOI
Sent: 03 March 2016 15:36
To: Long
Subject: RE: Re – Freedom of Information Request – Reference – FOI / 1601

Dear Mr Long,

Thank you for your email.

The Council has considered your email of the 29th February as a Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) request in accordance with Section 8 of the Act which notes a request for information is captured by the legislation in the following circumstances:

a “request for information” is a reference to such a request which—
(a)is in writing,
(b)states the name of the applicant and an address for correspondence, and
(c)describes the information requested.

As your email of the 29th February meets the conditions above we have decided to process your request under the FOIA, rather than as a business as usual enquiry. This will ensure that a response is processed in accordance with the requirements of the legislation.

You are of course able to withdraw your request if you wish to do so, but I would note that WE WILL ONLY BE PROCESSING THIS REQUEST UNDER FOIA AND NOT UNDER ‘A GENERAL ENQUIRY’ AS WE BELIEVE FOIA IS THE APPROPRIATE AND LEGAL MECHANISM FOR CONSIDERATION OF YOUR REQUEST.

If you do wish to withdraw the request please confirm to this email address; otherwise I will continue to proceed with collating a response to this request under FOIA.

Kind regards

Mark

Mark Knight
Information Management Officer
Information and Knowledge Management
Business Change & Information Solutions (BCIS)
Sheffield City Council
PO Box 1283 Sheffield S1 1UJ
www.sheffield.gov.uk
________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The subsequent communication exchange is provided below, as it further confirms that SHEFFIELD CITY COUNCIL WILL NOT PROVIDE THE INFORMATION REQUESTED, OTHER THAN THROUGH THE FOI MECHANISM.
From: Long
Sent: 03 March 2016 17:01
To: Knight Mark (CEX)
Cc: FOI
Subject: RE: Re – Freedom of Information Request – Reference – FOI / 1601
Importance: High

Dear Mr Knight,

I have instructed you to do as follows:

“Please withdraw and delete Freedom of Information Request – Reference – FOI / 1601.

My e-mail to the Highways PFI Client Team was NOT a FOI request. It was a general enquiry.”

I expect you to comply with my request without any further delay, as a matter of immediate priority.

Yours Sincerely,

Mr Long
________________________________________________________________________________________________________

From: Knight Mark (CEX) [ mailto:[email address] ] On Behalf Of FOI
Sent: 04 March 2016 17:23
To: Long
Subject: RE: Re – Freedom of Information Request – Reference – FOI / 1601

Dear Mr Long,

As per your request I have noted this FOI as withdrawn; but I do note as per my email below: You are of course able to withdraw your request if you wish to do so, but I would note that WE WILL ONLY BE PROCESSING THIS REQUEST UNDER FOIA AND NOT UNDER ‘A GENERAL ENQUIRY’ AS WE BELIEVE FOIA IS THE APPROPRIATE AND LEGAL MECHANISM FOR CONSIDERATION OF YOUR REQUEST. AS A RESULT THERE WILL BE NO FURTHER RESPONSE to your email of the 29th February 2016.

I will not be deleting the record of this correspondence/ FOI as requested as this encompasses our records of our customer contact and is used to monitor requests for information.

Should you wish to proceed with a formal request for related information to be deleted you are within your right to exercise your rights as detailed below:

Under Section 10 of the Data Protection Act 1998 you have the Right to prevent processing likely to cause damage or distress.
In order for the Council to review a Section 10 notice to prevent processing (either fully or in a particular manner) we need further details from you in order to assess your request. Please can you provide the following details:
• You need to confirm, in writing, why the processing of your data (the FOI request) causes unwarranted and substantial damage or distress to you.

The Information Commissioner’s Office (the regulator for Data Protection Rights) provide guidance to organisation wishing to subject a Section 10 notice at: https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/gui... which may be of assistance to you if you wish to continue with such a request.

It would then be for the Council to review whether we consider the damage or distress is warranted and whether to action the request.

Kind regards

Mark

Mark Knight
Information Management Officer
Information and Knowledge Management
Business Change & Information Solutions (BCIS)
Sheffield City Council
PO Box 1283 Sheffield S1 1UJ
www.sheffield.gov.uk
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

From: Long
Sent: 04 March 2016 18:27
To: [email address]
Cc: FOI ([email address])
Subject: RE: Re – Freedom of Information Request – Reference – FOI / 1601
Importance: High

Dear Mr Knight,

Sheffield City Council made a Freedom of Information request, under the FOI Act (2000), I did not. I DID NOT MAKE A request for information UNDER THE FOI Act (2000).

You state: “As a result there will be no further response to your email of the 29th February 2016.”

Which e-mail is that? Please confirm.

Yours sincerely,

Mr Long
________________________________________________________________________________________________________

It would appear that there is a deliberate policy to withhold basic information, such as contact details, from the public. This does not help foster trust, support, credibility, or aid the Council's aim: to "COMMIT TO BE OPEN AND TRANSPARENT WITH THE SHEFFIELD PUBLIC IN ENSURING ALL OUR INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN”, as was declared and "resolved" at the meeting of full Council, in Sheffield Town Hall, on 3rd February, 2016.

Yours sincerely,

Mr Long

Dear FOI,

Please note that had the Information Management Officer not withdrawn the later FOI request (FOI / 1601), submitted by SCCs Mr Needham, in all likelihood, it would have been refused under Section 5(2) of the FOI Act, as SCC have done previously: see Appendix 15 (pages 252 to 258) of "SORT LETTER TO THE CABINET MEMBER FOR ENVIRONMENT AND TRANSPORT", dated 29th January, 2016. Link:
https://www.stocksbridgecommunity.org/ne...

Quote:
"Why do the exemptions apply in this case?
[...]
SECTION 5(2) NOTES: (a)the two or more requests referred to in paragraph (1) relate, to any extent, to the same or similar information, and (b)those requests are received by the public authority within any period of SIXTY CONSECUTIVE WORKING DAYS."

Yours sincerely,

Mr Long

Dear FOI,

Please note that in my e-mail to Mark Knight dated 4th March, 2016, I requested that he clarify precisely which e-mail he was referring to when he stated:

“As a result there will be no further response to your email of the 29th February 2016.”

Mr Knight's response was as follows:
_________________________________________________________________________________________
From: Knight Mark (CEX) [mailto:[email address]] On Behalf Of FOI
Sent: 09 March 2016 09:09
To: Long
Subject: RE: Re – Freedom of Information Request – Reference – FOI / 1601

Dear Mr Long,

As per the previous correspondence this relates to the email at the start of this email chain, namely the email of the 29th February 2015 at 10:49 to [email address] and marked for the attention of ‘Mr Needham’.

Kind regards

Mark

Mark Knight
Information Management Officer
Information and Knowledge Management
Business Change & Information Solutions (BCIS)
Sheffield City Council
PO Box 1283 Sheffield S1 1UJ
www.sheffield.gov.uk
_______________________________________________________________________________________

Yours sincerely,

Mr Long

Dear FOI,

You have refused my FOI request (FOI / 1599) and you have not responded to my subsequent communications.

You refused my request by stating:

"We believe this information
to be exempt under Section 14(1) vexatious. Any enquiries related to
highway trees and related works should be made via the contact details
available at:
[1]https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/roads/about... "

You also refused my request (FOI / 1599) by stating:

"As this information is accessible by other means it is exempt from
disclosure under Section 21(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000".

I have informed you that I have previously attempted to access the information requested by e-mailing Streets Ahead and all the people that I have listed. None have responded. In fact, Mr Needham converted my enquiry to an FOI request (FOI / 1601)! In response to that, in an e-mail dated 2nd March, 2016, Sheffield City Council’s Information Management Officer – Mark Knight – stated:

“WE WILL ONLY BE PROCESSING THIS REQUEST UNDER FOIA AND NOT UNDER ‘A GENERAL ENQUIRY’ AS WE BELIEVE FOIA IS THE APPROPRIATE AND LEGAL MECHANISM FOR CONSIDERATION OF YOUR REQUEST”.

In short, you cannot reasonably assert that your refusal of my FOI request, by reliance on the sections of the Act that you have cited, and in light of the information that I have provided to you, has valid basis. I believe that you have misused and abused the Act and that your assertions are invalid.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000...

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2004/...

I have made a request for information. If you have supplied the same or similar information to anybody else within a reasonable time period prior to receiving my request, please provide me with full, complete, unredacted copies of ALL such documents.

Please respond without any further delay, as a matter of immediate priority.

Yours sincerely,

Mr Long

Dear FOI,
That is an interesting. To date, I HAVE NOT requested a review of the refusal response that you provided. I have requested that you provide further detail, and I have provided reasoning as to why I believe your response to be inappropriate, inadequate and wrong. I have provided evidence to support my reasoning. I also have a heap of e-mail communications that can be used as further evidence, should that be necessary.

PLEASE PROVIDE THE FURTHER DETAIL THAT I HAVE REQUESTED.

If you neglect to do so, I will then request a review.

Yours sincerely,

Mr Long

Dear FOI,

To date, you have neglected to provide the further detail I requested a week ago. For your benefit, you will find my communications with the team responsible for the £2.2bn, city-wide, transformational Streets Ahead project, delivered by Amey, detailed below. You were copied in on these communications, earlier today. The Streets Ahead Customer Services team (Amey: the provider of customer services) have a strong track record of ignoring enquiries and providing responses that do not provide answers, reasoning, evidence, or address any of the matters raised in an adequate manner (if they even bother to address such matters).
__________________________________________________________________________________________
From: streetsahead [mailto:[email address]]
Sent: 30 March 2016 12:15
To: DLong
Subject: Auto reply

Please note that this is an automatic acknowledgement and we'll look into your request as soon as possible.

A further response will be sent when your request is processed, including a customer reference number.

You don't need to do anything else; we'll be in touch if we need any more information.

In the future, you can use our Online forms to report problems or request services; www.sheffield.gov.uk/reportmystreet

Kind regards

Customer Services
Tel: OII4 273 4S67

__________________________________________________________________________________________
From: DLong
Sent: 30 March 2016 12:15
To: [email address]
Subject: CONTACT DETAILS_ENQUIRY NOW ONE MONTH & ONE WEEK OLD - NO RESPONSE!
Importance: High

To the Streets Ahead team,

IT IS NOW ONE MONTH AND A WEEK since I sent the e-mail below, dated 23rd February, 2016. Although I received the automatic acknowledgement below, you have neglected to respond to the enquiry. Please provide the information requested without any further delay.

Also, please explain why it is taking you over a month to respond to this simple enquiry and provide the basic information requested.

On 3rd February, 2016, at the meeting of full Council, in response to the Nether Edge petition, Sheffield City Council “resolved” to:

“COMMIT TO BE OPEN AND TRANSPARENT WITH THE SHEFFIELD PUBLIC IN ENSURING ALL OUR INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN.”

On 19th February, 2016, Sheffield’s Labour Party stated:

“We are open and transparent with the Sheffield public ensuring all relevant information is available and in the public domain”.

D.Long
__________________________________________________________________________________________

From: streetsahead [mailto:[email address]]
Sent: 23 February 2016 13:01
To: DLong
Subject: Auto reply

Please note that this is an automatic acknowledgement and we'll look into your request as soon as possible.

A further response will be sent when your request is processed, including a customer reference number.

You don't need to do anything else; we'll be in touch if we need any more information.

In the future, you can use our Online forms to report problems or request services; www.sheffield.gov.uk/reportmystreet

Kind regards

Customer Services
Tel: 0114 273 4567

__________________________________________________________________________________________
From: DLong
Sent: 23 February 2016 12:44
To: [email address]
Subject: CONTACT DETAILS
Importance: High

Dear Sir/Madam,

In my part of the city, there have been numerous contraventions of good practice guidance by Amey when working in close proximity to trees. As a result, one of my trees has been negatively affected. As a matter of immediate priority, please provide full work contact details - name, job title, postal address, e-mail and direct telephone number (not the Streets Ahead telephone number) - for the Sheffield City Council Officers/personnel most directly responsible for:

a) MONITORING highway works in close proximity to trees;

b) ON SITE SUPERVISION of highway works in close proximity to trees;

c) AUDITING of highway works in close proximity to trees;

d) ENFORCEMENT of compliance with current good practice guidance and recommendations for highway works in close proximity to trees.

Please remember that Sheffield’s Labour party have recently claimed, on 19th February, 2016:

“We are open and transparent with the Sheffield public ensuring all relevant information is available and in the public domain”.

Yours sincerely,

D.Long
__________________________________________________________________________________________

Yours sincerely,

D.Long