Information on watering of newly planted trees.

Sheffield City Council did not have the information requested.

Dear Sheffield City Council,

I would like information regarding the frequency and volume of watering the newly planted saplings on Langsett Crescent are receiving, specifically the sapling planted on the junction of Langsett Crescent and Freedom Court. I would like to know over the previous two months (from 11/05/18 to the present):

a) The number of individual visits made by SCC or subcontractors for the purpose of watering, if possible including time and date.

b) The volume of water provided on each of these occasions.

c) Any contingency plan or alteration in schedule which has occurred due to the current dry spell.

Please provide all information you have regarding these questions on this specific tree and / or trees in the area.

Yours faithfully,

Emma Lewis

FOI, Sheffield City Council

Dear Emma Lewis,
 
Thank you for your recent request for information relating to Watering of
Saplings on Langsett Crescent which we received on 11/07/18.
 
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 08/08/18.
 
In the meantime, if you have any queries please, contact us at the number
below.
 
Thank you.
 
Yours sincerely,
 
Sheffield City Council
PO Box 1283
Sheffield, S1 1UJ
Email: [1][Sheffield City Council request email]
P Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to
 
 
_____________________________________________
From: Emma Lewis [[2]mailto:[FOI #496966 email]]
Sent: 11 July 2018 15:57
To: FOI
Subject: Freedom of Information request - Information on watering of newly
planted trees.
 
Dear Sheffield City Council,
 
I would like information regarding the frequency and volume of watering
the newly planted saplings on Langsett Crescent are receiving,
specifically the sapling planted on the junction of Langsett Crescent and
Freedom Court. I would like to know over the previous two months (from
11/05/18 to the present):
 
a) The number of individual visits made by SCC or subcontractors for the
purpose of watering, if possible including time and date.
 
b) The volume of water provided on each of these occasions.
 
c) Any contingency plan or alteration in schedule which has occurred due
to the current dry spell.
 
Please provide all information you have regarding these questions on this
specific tree and / or trees in the area.
 
Yours faithfully,
 
Emma Lewis
 
-------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[3][FOI #496966 email]
 
Is [4][Sheffield City Council request email] the wrong address for Freedom of Information
requests to Sheffield City Council? If so, please contact us using this
form:
[5]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:
[6]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/offi...
 
For more detailed guidance on safely disclosing information, read the
latest advice from the ICO:
[7]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

FOI, Sheffield City Council

Dear Emma Lewis,
 
Thank you for your recent request for information relating to Watering of
Saplings on Langsett Crescent which we received on 11/07/18.
 
Please find below, Sheffield City Council’s response to your request:
 
I would like information regarding the frequency and volume of watering
the newly planted saplings on Langsett Crescent are receiving,
specifically the sapling planted on the junction of Langsett Crescent and
Freedom Court. I would like to know over the previous two months (from
11/05/18 to the present):
 

 a. The number of individual visits made by SCC or subcontractors for the
purpose of watering, if possible including time and date.

 
Under the Streets Ahead contract, Amey are contractually required to
maintain highway trees and to ensure that there is no overall reduction in
the number of highway trees across the city. In order to ensure that there
is no overall reduction in tree numbers, Amey will need to maintain trees
in a healthy condition, including watering as necessary. However, how Amey
organise and undertake work to ensure that these contractual obligations
are met is for them to determine.  Sheffield City Council do not hold
records of how often and when Amey water highway trees.
 

 b. The volume of water provided on each of these occasions.

 
See answer to a) above however, for your information, the standard
watering for each replacement tree is between 25 to 30 litres at least
twice a year.
 

 c. Any contingency plan or alteration in schedule which has occurred due
to the current dry spell.

 
See answer to a) above
 
If you have any queries about this response, please do not hesitate to
contact us.
 
If you are unhappy with the response you have received in relation to your
request, you are entitled to have this reviewed.  You can ask for an
internal review by either writing to the above address or by emailing
[1][Sheffield City Council request email].  Internal review requests should be submitted
within 40 working days from the date of this response.
 
If you remain dissatisfied with the outcome of your internal review, you
can contact the Information Commissioners Office. The Information
Commissioner can be contacted at: The Information Commissioner's Office,
Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF, telephone 0303
123 1113, or for further details see their website [2]www.ico.org.uk
 
Kind Regards,
 
Sheffield City Council
PO Box 1283
Sheffield, S1 1UJ
Email: [3][Sheffield City Council request email]
P Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to
 
_____________________________________________
From: Emma Lewis [[4]mailto:[FOI #496966 email]]
Sent: 11 July 2018 15:57
To: FOI
Subject: Freedom of Information request - Information on watering of newly
planted trees.
 
Dear Sheffield City Council,
 
I would like information regarding the frequency and volume of watering
the newly planted saplings on Langsett Crescent are receiving,
specifically the sapling planted on the junction of Langsett Crescent and
Freedom Court. I would like to know over the previous two months (from
11/05/18 to the present):
 
a) The number of individual visits made by SCC or subcontractors for the
purpose of watering, if possible including time and date.
 
b) The volume of water provided on each of these occasions.
 
c) Any contingency plan or alteration in schedule which has occurred due
to the current dry spell.
 
Please provide all information you have regarding these questions on this
specific tree and / or trees in the area.
 
Yours faithfully,
 
Emma Lewis
 
-------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[5][FOI #496966 email]
 
Is [6][Sheffield City Council request email] the wrong address for Freedom of Information
requests to Sheffield City Council? If so, please contact us using this
form:
[7]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:
[8]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/offi...
 
For more detailed guidance on safely disclosing information, read the
latest advice from the ICO:
[9]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

Mr Long left an annotation ()

AMEY SELF-MONITORING & AFTERCARE: THE SHEFFIELD TAXPAYER RIP-OFF

(SOURCE:
https://ianswalkonthewildside.wordpress.... )

In October 2016, a Freedom of Information request (FOI/2671) response (from SCC’s Resources Business Support team) stated:

“THE STREETS AHEAD CONTRACT IS BASED ON PERFORMANCE SELF-MONITORING BY AMEY."

"In a separate communication, later the same month, DARREN BUTT (the Amey Operations Director*), stated:

‘With regards to monitoring of our activities and improvements, THE STREETS AHEAD HIGHWAYS MAINTENANCE CONTRACT IS BASED ON THE PRINCIPLE OF PERFORMANCE SELF-MONITORING and is robustly SELF-MONITORED BY AMEY...’"

* Now Account Director.

SOURCE:
https://www.change.org/p/sheffield-city-...

*****
FOI/174 response, dated 24th August 2017

“THE STREETS AHEAD HIGHWAYS MAINTENANCE CONTRACT IS BASED ON THE PRINCIPLE OF PERFORMANCE SELF-MONITORING AND IS ROBUSTLY SELF-MONITORED BY AMEY; this does not however mean that the works are not independently
scrutinised and regulated. The Authority carries out such sample checks as are necessary to validate THE AMEY SELF-MONITORING REGIME.”

SOURCE:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/p...

***
At a private meeting, on 1st of August 2016, the Sheffield City Council Cabinet Member for Environment & Transport - Cllr Bryan Lodge (Labour) - informed:

“We’re having to shave back on where we’re monitoring. So, the money for the maintenance side is in there, but the monitoring – the client management side – is not part of that, and that’s where we’re having to make funding cuts… THE MONEY THAT WE NEED TO MONITOR THAT CONTRACT IS NOT THERE, because we try to make savings and…where people have left, we haven’t replaced. We’ve done vacancy management, so WE HAVEN’T GOT THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN THAT CLIENT MANAGEMENT TEAM WHICH WE OUGHT TO HAVE. ”

SOURCE:
http://stocksbridgecommunity.org.archive...

***
In response to a complaint to SCC dated 2nd March 2018, about shoddy works and bad practice by Amey, Amey provided a response:

“For your information, I can confirm that AMEY HAS DESIGNATED POWERS TO RESPOND ON BEHALF OF THE COUNCIL ON ALL MATTERS PERTAINING TO STREETS AHEAD WORKS, INCLUDING THE HANDLING AND INVESTIGATION OF COMPLAINTS.
[…]

Jeremy Willis
Operations Manager
Customer Services (Amey)”

SOURCE:
https://en-gb.facebook.com/groups/392913...

***
In July 2018, several weeks in to the longest heatwave since 1976, a Sheffield Tree Action Group participant (Celia Pinnington) received a response to a FOI request that she had submitted. A couple of the questions asked and the responses received were:

QUESTION:

“How often are newly planted saplings watered, and how much water is being given at each scheduled watering? Please provide either monthly or weekly information, from 1st April 2018”

SCC/AMEY RESPONSE:

“The standard watering amount for each replacement tree is between 25 TO 30 LITRES AT LEAST TWICE A YEAR. This quantity may vary dependent upon the species and size of tree, as well as any specific site conditions. We are therefore unable to provide you with a monthly or weekly breakdown of works.”*

QUESTION:

“Are the requirements of Sheffield City Council’s Highway Tree Specifications section 2.7.3 being adhered to? ie. “A MINIMUM OF 90 LITRES PER TREE SHALL BE APPLIED AT FORTNIGHTLY INTERVALS in the period 1st May to 30th September.

https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/content/dam... "

SCC/AMEY RESPONSE:

“We can confirm THAT THIS IS NOT A CONTRACTUAL DOCUMENT and is for guidance only, appertaining primarily to semi-mature and mature trees planted for instant impact on landscaping schemes, rather than the smaller, extra heavy standards planted within the Streets Ahead works.”

SOURCE:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/39291324...

*****
* This was also stated in another SCC/Amey communication received in July 2018:

“We can advise that when a replacement tree is planted, it is watered throughout the following year. The Standard watering for each replacement tree is between 25 TO 30 LITRES AT LEAST TWICE A YEAR.”

SOURCE:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=...

In response to an e-mail dated 17th JULY 2018, Ms Pinnington received greater detail from Streets Ahead Customer Services (AMEY):

“We can confirm that the replacement trees have received between 25-30 LITRES THREE TIMES SINCE APRIL 2018.
We can also advise that we are currently well into a fourth round of tree watering.”

SOURCE:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/39291324...

On 30th July 2018, Ms Pinnington received a further communication from SCC/Amey – an e-mail. It informed:

"We can confirm that WE HAVE A RECORD OF WHEN YOUNG TREES HAVE BEEN WATERED for operational purposes."

SOURCE (comments area):
https://www.facebook.com/groups/39291324...

*****
QUOTES FROM THE BRITISH STANDARDS THAT SCC & AMEY CLAIM TO USE AND ENFORCE COMPLIANCE WITH

BS 3998 (2010):

“6.5 Irrigation/drainage
[…]
Irrigation should be applied so that it wets the greatest practicable
proportion of the tree root volume OVER A PERIOD OF SEVERAL HOURS, BY MEANS OF A CONTROLLED DELIVERY SYSTEM.

NOTE
Flooding water onto the soil surface leads TO RUN-OFF, A WASTE OF WATER AND THE TREE REMAINING SHORT OF WATER.

Where soil becomes persistently waterlogged due TO IMPEDED
DRAINAGE or changes in site conditions, the EXCESSIVE WATER SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM THE SOIL either by the installation of a drainage system or by improving the movement of water through the soil by addressing causal factors such as COMPACTION (see 6.3).”
(from page 17 of BS3998)

BS 8545 (2014):

“11.3 Irrigation

11.3.3 In addition to water-holding capacity, THE AMOUNT OF WATER AVAILABLE TO THE TREE should be assessed. Applying this to all newly planted trees is often impractical, but SAMPLE ASSESSMENTS SHOULD BE MADE.

NOTE
Guidance on determining the amount of available water is given in Annex G, Table G.1.

11.3.4 THE FREQUENCY OF IRRIGATION IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE VOLUME OF WATER GIVEN AT ANY ONE TIME. INCREASED WATER VOLUMES CANNOT COMPENSATE FOR A LACK OF FREQUENCY. This should be accounted for in irrigation plans. IRRIGATION PLANS should also take into account the findings of the original SITE ASSESSMENT and the subsequent species choice made.

NOTE
It might not be sufficient to apply a given amount of water arbitrarily at a certain frequency after transplanting.

11.3.5 MONITORING is recommended if there are 10 consecutive days during the growing season at ≥25 °C. Water should only be added if SOIL MOISTURE PROBE/TENSIOMETER VALUES indicate that it would be appropriate to do so.

11.3.6 The FREQUENCY AND EXTENT OF IRRIGATION should take into account the prevailing weather conditions (e.g. prolonged dry periods or rainfall patterns).

NOTE
Where there is hard surfacing near to newly planted trees, careful design can be used to supplement irrigation needs. This can be achieved by using PERMEABLE SURFACING, DIRECTIONAL DRAINAGE CHANNELS, or other methods where natural rainfall is directed into the rooting environment.

11.3.7 If the use of IRRIGATION TUBES is proposed, it should be fully assessed in relation to the site constraints.

NOTE
THE USE OF IRRIGATION TUBES DOES NOT NECESSARILY PRECLUDE THE NEED FOR TOP WATERING.”

(from page 24 of BS8545)

“It is more important to irrigate transplanted trees frequently than to apply large volumes of water infrequently, as A SINGLE APPLICATION OF A LARGE VOLUME OF WATER DOES NOT COMPENSATE FOR IRRIGATING INFREQUENTLY.

Research has indicated that watering every other day with 4 L to 8 L of water for every 250 mm of stem diameter just above the root flare might provide the most even soil moisture for roots but this might be impractical to deliver.

Research has also indicated that IN MOST CLIMATES, TREES PROBABLY NEED TO BE WATERED ABOUT TWICE EACH WEEK WITH 20 L OF WATER ADEQUATE TO KEEP AN 800 MM DIAMETER ROOTBALL WELL IRRIGATED, and that 40 L of water or less thoroughly moistens a soil ball of 500 mm to 600 mm.

The ASSESSMENT OF IRRIGATION need can be assisted by the use of
a simple SOIL MOISTURE METER.

SAMPLING CAN BE A USEFUL EXERCISE WHEN LARGE NUMBERS OF NEWLY PLANTED TREES ARE BEING MANAGED AND IRRIGATION NEEDS ARE BEING ASSESSED.
[…]

The period over which irrigation is required is likely to be at least two full growing seasons.

[…]
Where it is possible for enlarged areas to be irrigated commensurate
with root spread and development, a depth of 300 mm is ideal. FOR SOILS WITH GOOD WATER HOLDING CAPACITY this is the equivalent, per application, of 40 L/m2 of soil surface area.”

(from page 72 of BS8545)

REFERENCES:

The British Standards Institution, 2010. British Standard 3998:2010 Tree Work – Recommendations. London: BSI Standards Ltd.
https://shop.bsigroup.com/ProductDetail/...

DRAFT:
http://lists.tree-care.info/sympa/d_read...

The British Standards Institution, 2014. British Standard 8545:2014 Trees: From Nursery to Independence in the Landscape – Recommendations, London: BSI Standards Ltd.
https://shop.bsigroup.com/ProductDetail/...

DRAFT:
http://www.informedtreeservices.co.uk/wp...

*****
On 2nd February 2016 (the day before ‘debate’ of the Nether Edge petition) , SCC announced publication* of, and granted public access to, a document which they claimed had been kept secret as it had been a 'commercially sensitive' contract document: the 'Streets Ahead Five Year Tree Management Strategy (2012 – 2017)'. This was in response to receipt of the SORT letter dated 29th January 2016. It states:

"Street tree maintenance WORK WILL BE CARRIED OUT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING STANDARDS and legislation (NOT AN EXHAUSTIVE LIST):
[...]
• BS3998 2010 Tree Works
• BS5837 2005 Trees in Relation to Construction
• NJUG 10 Trees and Utilities
[...]

ANY RELEVANT RESEARCH OR GUIDANCE NOTES ISSUED BY, AND COMMUNICATED THROUGH, INDUSTRY-SPECIFIC SOURCES SUCH AS www.trees.org.uk (Arboricultural Association), www.hse.gov.uk/treework ."
(from page 16 of the document)

SOURCE:

http://stocksbridgecommunity.org.archive...

* The SCC announcement:

http://www.sheffieldnewsroom.co.uk/counc...

*****
SCC COMMENT ON THE 5yr CONTRACT DOCUMENT:

“Councillor Terry Fox, the Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport, thanked the petitioners and campaigners. He stated…

In an independent report during 2007*, 75 percent of street trees were assessed as being mature or over-mature with potentially catastrophic decline in the health and safety of street trees if a programme of replacement was not undertaken. The Streets Ahead contract was informed by this survey. AMEY HAD A FIVE YEAR TREE STRATEGY WITHIN THE CONTRACT. Information which had been PART OF A CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENT had now been released as public information.”

SOURCE (page 20 of the minutes of the meeting of full Council that occurred on 3rd February 2016):

http://democracy.sheffield.gov.uk/docume...

* The 'INDEPENDENT REPORT' can be accessed here:
http://stocksbridgecommunity.org.archive...

It should be read with this:

https://ianswalkonthewildside.wordpress....

Also see the Outline Business Case that SCC have repeatedly cited to justify the felling of thousands of healthy, structurally sound, mature street trees (see page 20):

http://stocksbridgecommunity.org.archive...

***
AN EXTRACT FROM A TRANSCRIPT OF Cllr Fox's EXACT WORDS AT THE MEETING OF FULL COUNCIL ON 3rd FEBRUARY 2016:

“AMEY HAD THE FIVE YEAR TREE MANAGEMENT STRATEGY WITHIN THEIR CONFIDENTIAL CONTRACT. We listened; we listened to what people have said and we’ve been able to release that document, Lord Mayor, out in to the public. Lord Mayor, with that, we also had an opportunity that we believed in previous ‘debates’, as always throughout here, is that OUR POLICIES AND OUR PROCEDURES ARE UP FOR CHALLENGE. IT HAS BEEN STATED, NOT ONCE, BUT MANY TIMES, THAT TAKING A TREE IS A LAST RESORT; and, to deal with that, and to deal with a small jigsaw piece of the Streets Ahead project, is the reason why we’ve got the Independent Tree Panel”

SOURCE:
An audio file of the meeting of full Council held on 3rd February 2016, named as follows:

‘Cllr Terry Fox - SCC Cabinet Member For Environment And Transport - 3rd February 2016_5yr Doc_Last Resort_ITP_Nether Edge_Petition_160203_008_1_4_2_03’

Mr Long left an annotation ()

COMMENT FROM STAG FACEBOOK

POSTED BY IAN CHALLIS, ON 30th July 2018:

Within the main “Streets Ahead Contract” it states:

“28.8 Sample Inspections
The Service Provider shall carry out the SAMPLING INSPECTIONS of the Carriageways and Footways Service, GROUNDS MAINTENANCE SERVICES and the Street Cleaning Services pursuant to Service Standards 2, 6 and 8 of the Output Specification. ”

The sub contract document “SCHEDULE 2: SERVICE STANDARDS” has the following section of text within it:

“1.7. ensure that an ANNUAL TREE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMME is developed, approved by the Authority and carried out with all Highway Tree (and trees forming part of Highway Tree Clusters) replacements being UNDERTAKEN HAVING REGARD TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE HIGHWAY TREE REPLACEMENT POLICY ;”

The “Annual Tree Management Programme” that is referred to above is the “5 YEAR TREE MANAGEMENT STRATEGY” document. This has a number of sub versions, but even within the “5 Year Tree Management Strategy 2016 Redacted” it states:

“Ensure a safe tree stock THROUGH GOOD TREE MANAGEMENT AND PROTECTION.”

The above does not include the words “watering the trees” but it clearly would be under “Good Industry Practice” to water them so they don’t die.

It should also be noted within the main “Streets Ahead Contract” document under “PART G – THE SERVICES” (starting on page 154) it states:

“31. OBLIGATION TO PROVIDE THE SERVICE AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
31.1 Standard of Service
The Service Provider shall provide the Service CONTINUOUSLY THROUGHOUT THE TERM:
31.1.1 IN ACCORDANCE WITH GOOD INDUSTRY PRACTICE;
31.1.2 in order to comply fully with Schedule 2 (Output Specification)”

THE SCHEDULE DOCUMENT WHICH IS REFERRED TO above is NOT named as “Output Specifications” however it is clearly the same document which in turn refers within it to “Schedule 6” for some content. Irrelevent “Schedule 2” is still referred to within the original contract under 31.1.2, which on PAGE 38 OF “SCHEDULE 2” REFERS TO THE “5 YEAR TREE MANAGEMENT STRATEGY”.

As the main contract and sub documents, including the schedules and original “Streets Ahead 5 Tree Management Strategy” were all drafted as part of the same document set, and the “Tree Management” strategy was a clearly defined deliverable this makes them contractually linked.

What is also clear is mulitple references within the main contract, schedules and sub documents to “GOOD INDUSTRY PRACTICE” – although it does not state a specific standard the fact this phrase has been used means that AMEY ARE CONTRACTUALLY REQUIRED TO FOLLOW GENERAL INDUSTRY TRENDS FOR CONDUCTING THEIR WORK, AND IF THEY DO NOT THEN THEY ARE BREAKING A CONDITION OF THE CONTRACT. If it can be demonstrating that general industry best practice is not being kept to by Amey (i.e. Not having a watering plan that suitably supports the trees in developing, not suitably assessing trees before deciding to cut them down, and not suitably using alternative engineering methods to retain existing trees and thus “ensure a safe tree stock through good tree management and protection”) then all these are items THE COUNCIL SHOULD BE USING TO ISSUE WRITTEN WARNINGS TO AMEY TO SUITABLY ADDRESS THROUGH “DISPUTE RESOLUTION” WHICH IS DETAILED IN THE CONTRACT, and if they do not do this then THE COUNCIL CAN SUITABLY TERMINATE THE CONTRACT (which should be at no cost when three disputes have not been addressed to the council’s satisfaction).

In short they are contractually obligated and are hence breaking their contractual obligation not watering them…

SOURCE (see the comments area):
https://www.facebook.com/groups/39291324...

Mr Long left an annotation ()

NOTE:

SCC are only bothered about the NUMBER of trees – they do not care about impact on CANOPY COVER or SUSTAINABLE stewardship of VALUABLE GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE ASSETS and the range of VALUABLE BENEFITS they afford to communities and the environment.

FOR DETAIL, SEE:

MANAGEMENT BY NUMBERS (Published as ‘Impact Assessment’):
http://stocksbridgecommunity.org.archive...

"STREET TREE MASSACRE" - a response to Cllr Peter Price (published in The Star):
https://ianswalkonthewildside.wordpress....

AMEY ESAs DO NOT TAKE ACCOUNT OF VALUE OR LOSS OF VALUABLE TREES OR ASSOCIATED BENEFITS:
https://ianswalkonthewildside.wordpress....

ESAs can be found here:
http://stocksbridgecommunity.org.archive...

HOW TO RETAIN MEMORIAL TREES:
http://stocksbridgecommunity.org.archive...

TREES: JUGGLING SUSTAINABILITY, RISK & FEAR:
https://ianswalkonthewildside.wordpress....

*****
IF YOU ARE FED UP WITH SCC INCOMPETENCE, CONTACT MR NEEDHAM
(SCC Highways PFI Client Team):
https://www.change.org/p/sheffield-city-...

Mr Long left an annotation ()

SCC MISUSE & ABUSE OF THE FOI ACT

Sheffield City Council (SCC) often dismiss requests for information about aspects of the £2.2bn highway maintenance contract for the 25yr ‘Streets Ahead’ project, by asserting that SCC does not hold any relevant information, as Amey has it and it is therefore ‘commercially sensitive’.

The Information Commissioner has ruled that it is WRONG for SCC to misuse and abuse the Freedom Of Information Act to withhold access to information that is held on its behalf by the service provider (contractor) for the Streets Ahead project.

Following investigation, on 4th October 2017 the Information Commissioner’s Office issued a Decision Notice (Reference: FS50637180). The Decision Notice can be accessed via this link:

http://stocksbridgecommunity.org.archive...

THE ICO DECISION NOTICE STATES:

“13.
During the course of this investigation, IT BECAME EVIDENT THAT THE COUNCIL DID HOLD INFORMATION, BY VIRTUE OF IT BEING HELD ON ITS BEHALF BY ITS CONTRACTOR AMEY as per regulation (2)(b) of the EIR. Amey has a contract with the Council to carry out maintenance work for roads, street lights, and roadside trees. WHILST THIS MAINTENANCE WORK HAS BEEN OUTSOURCED TO AMEY IT REMAINS THE COUNCIL’S RESPONSIBILITY, AND THEREFORE FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE EIR INFORMATION about the location of the 143 trees IS HELD BY THE COUNCIL.
[…]

40.
The SECTION 46 CODE OF PRACTICE* provides guidance on effective record management policies and why this is of benefit for both public authorities and requesters alike. The following extract comes from PARAGRAPH 9.3 and deals with what record systems should be held:

‘9.3
RECORDS SYSTEMS should be designed to meet the authority’s operational needs and using them SHOULD BE AN INTEGRAL PART OF BUSINESS OPERATIONS AND PROCESSES. RECORDS SYSTEMS SHOULD HAVE THE FOLLOWING CHARACTERISTICS:

a)
THEY SHOULD BE EASY TO UNDERSTAND AND USE so as to reduce the effort required of those who create and use the records within them. Ease of use is an important consideration when developing or selecting a system;

b)
THEY SHOULD ENABLE QUICK AND EASY RETRIEVAL OF INFORMATION. With digital systems this should include the capacity to search for information requested under the Act;

h)
THEY SHOULD ENABLE AN AUDIT TRAIL to be produced of occasions on which selected records have been seen, used, amended and deleted.’

41.
The Commissioner considers that this guidance would be appropriate in this instance. THE COUNCIL (VIA AMEY) HOLDS INFORMATION ABOUT ITS MAINTENANCE PROGRAMME IN A WEATHER-STAINED MANUAL FORM with little recognisable capability for extracting details.

THIS SHOWS THE RECORDS ARE NOT EASY TO USE, DO NOT ALLOW FOR QUICK RETRIEVAL, and – from what the Council said about ongoing changes to the records – do not allow for it go back and determine what information would have been held.”

* Selected extracts from the ‘Freedom of Information Code of Practice’ (published 4th July 2018:

“Code of Practice issues under section 45 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, providing guidance to public authorities on the discharge of their functions and responsibilities under Part I (Access to information held by public authorities) of the Act.”):

https://www.gov.uk/government/publicatio...

*****
The aforementioned ICO investigation centred on an assertions made about use of Flexi-Pave to retain mature street trees over the duration of the £2.2bn PFI contract, made by the following:

• SCC Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport (Cllr Terry Fox and his successor – Cllr Bryan Lodge [Labour])
https://www.thestar.co.uk/news/row-over-...

• SCC Director of Development Services (David Caulfield: former Head of Planning)
http://stocksbridgecommunity.org.archive... (see Appendix 22: page 313)

• SCC Information Management Officer (Mark Knight)
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/c...

From May 2015 until July 2018, SCC – including the SCC Information management Officer - wilfully misled and deceived Councillors and citizens about the use of about use of Flexi-Pave on the Streets Ahead project – a “highway maintenance solution” that comes at “NO EXTRA COST TO THE COUNCIL”, according to the previoius, shamed, SCC Head of Highway Maintenance:

http://stocksbridgecommunity.org.archive...

http://stocksbridgecommunity.org.archive...

http://stocksbridgecommunity.org.archive...

http://www.sheffieldnewsroom.co.uk/counc... (a link to the 5yr Contract Document)

*****
Finally, in July 2018, in a private e-mail, SCC & Amey (the service provider for the project) informed:

“WE ARE NOT USING FLEXI-PAVE although the asphalt used on footways is a flexible material.”

SOURCE:
https://www.facebook.com/wes.hedge/posts...

Full detail of the alternative surfacing/Flexi-Pave debacle can be found online at the archived Stocksbridge Community Forum website. Use the following links:

http://stocksbridgecommunity.org.archive...

http://stocksbridgecommunity.org.archive...

http://stocksbridgecommunity.org.archive...

PDF files can be accessed here (on pages 2 & 3):
http://stocksbridgecommunity.org.archive...