KCC Duty to Promote Public Health .. Water Supply Contamination Thanet History and Impact

Kent County Council did not have the information requested.

Dear Kent County Council,

Please disclose the reasons KCC did not seek to enforce a public health long term epidemiology inquiry stated required by Health Protection Agency 2009. (Sericol contamination of Thanet water supply )

And please disclose how the absence of such inquiry was justified, against precautionary principle law, in your economic development dealings re plans for Manston Airport.

Yours faithfully,

Richard Card

 

Information request
Our reference: 1640333

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

Dear Mr Card
 
Environmental Information Regulations 2004
 
Thank you for your email which we received on 9 April 2018.
 
Kent County Council acknowledges your request for information under 
the Environmental Information Regulations 2004.  Assuming KCC holds this
information, we will endeavour to supply the data to you as soon as
possible but no later than 8 May 2018 (20 working days from date of
receipt).
 
We will advise you as soon as possible if we do not hold this information
or if there are exemptions to be considered and/or any costs for providing
the information.
 
Please quote our reference - 1640333 in any communication regarding this
particular request.
 
Yours sincerely
 
 
Peter Wylie
Information Access Officer
Strategic and Corporate Services
+443000415563
 
NOTE: Please do not edit the subject line when replying to this email.

Dear Kent County Council,

Thank you for your reply. I am asking about your duty to promote public health act under 2012 Act

I already know no planning applicants (Including River Oak) applied for the 2004 act information held by Thanet Council under the law generated by Aarhus Convention.

I am asking for disclosure of why KCC did not promote the epidemiology study Health Protection Kent declared necessary. In particular re precautionary principle requirements in the River Oak application to acquire Manston.

Thanks

Yours sincerely,

Richard Card

Dear Kent County Council,

You are now overdue to answer

Yours sincerely,

Richard Card

Dear Kent County Council,

You are one week overdue to respond

Yours sincerely,

Richard Card

Kent County Council

Dear Mr Card

 

Thank you for your request for information made under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) 2000, relating to water supply contamination.
Please accept my sincere apologies for the slight delay in responding to
you; I appreciate that the Council has not complied with statutory
timescales on this occasion.

 

Please disclose the reasons KCC did not seek to enforce a public health
long term epidemiology inquiry stated required by Health Protection Agency
2009.  (Sericol contamination of Thanet water supply)

Part one of this requests refers to Health Protection Agency work that
took place in 2009. Questions regarding the Health Protection Agency’s
epidemiological studies should now be directed to Public Health England. 
([1][email address])

 

In 2009, Public Health did not fall under Kent County Council, which is
why we do not hold any information.

 

And please disclose how the absence of such inquiry was justified, against
precautionary principle law, in your economic development dealings re
plans for Manston Airport.

Part two; questions regarding drinking water supply should be directed to
the Drinking Water Inspectorate. ([2][email address])

 

If you are unhappy with this response, and believe KCC has not complied
with legislation, please ask for a review by following our complaints
process; details can be found at this link
[3]http://www.kent.gov.uk/about-the-council...
on our website. Please quote reference - 1640333.

 

If you still remain dissatisfied following an internal review, you can
appeal to the Information Commissioner, who oversees compliance with the
Freedom of Information Act 2000. Details of what you need to do, should
you wish to pursue this course of action, are available from the
Information Commissioner’s website [4]http://www.ico.org.uk/concerns.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Jemila Dodge | Information Access Officer | Information Resilience &
Transparency Team | Kent County Council | Room 2.87 Sessions House,
Maidstone, ME14 1XQ | Phone: 03000 416034 |
[5]http://www.kent.gov.uk/about-the-council...
|

 

 

show quoted sections

Dear Kent County Council,

You would require the information to be on record under Aarhus Convention and Environmental Information Regulations. And to be subject of information your economic development officers avail to people such as potential investors in the attempt to acquire Manston Airport. The information would have created a duty on KCC Public Health to promote the epidemiology inquiry deemed necessary by your predecessors.

There is another FOI to you in that regard.

Yours faithfully,

Richard Card

 

Information request
Our reference: 1640333

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

Dear Mr Card

Thank you for your email.

I am sorry you are unhappy with KCC's response to your request for
information, specifically the fact that we don't hold the information you
have requested which you believe is in contravention with legislation. 

An independent officer who was not involved with your original request
will investigate your complaint and review our original response on behalf
of the Head of Paid Service. Their reply will be forthcoming within 20
working days from receipt (by 15th June 2018)

Best regards 

Caroline Dodge | Team Leader | Information Resilience & Transparency Team
| Kent County Council | Room 2.87, Sessions House, Maidstone, ME14
1XQ | Phone 03000 416033 | Fax 03000 420303 |
[1]http://www.kent.gov.uk/about-the-council...
|

 

NOTE: Please do not edit the subject line when replying to this email.

References

Visible links
1. http://www.kent.gov.uk/about-the-council...

Dear Kent County Council,

It is a complex FOI and in some part was answered by your response saying you have no record in the responsible dept.

.https://www.kent.police.uk/about-us/lead...

Mr Gilmartin in his time with Kent Police Authority and Kent Police and Crime Commissioner advised on "The Risk Management Aspects" of various matters including Sericol contamination of Thanet Water supply (My FOI revealing this history was 2008) and unreliability of backup generators.

Whether this advice extended to advising Kent Chief constable not to sign a High Court statement of truth that I challenged him with when I was issuing proceedings against Suffolk Chief constable 2006/7

But one can see the embarrassment if he had signed and then was asked about five backup generator failure incidents at Maidstone Hospital. At a time I was reporting direct to 10 Downing Street 2005 to 2007 when new security of electrical supply regs for NHS hospitals were issued.

It was not until 2014 I was told about unreliability of back up generators at Dungeness A which provide in depth safety for Dungeness B. Swale Council ran with this but not KCC. And not Kent Police who were facing embarrassment re IRA deployment to black out London and South East for six months 1996. IE There was indeed a high risk if IRA had succeeded then a consequence would have been Chernobyl on the Kent Coast.

Happily two tory MPs took my prior warnings to MI5 and West Midlands and Met Police were waiting at Broad Oak sub station Canterbury to nab the IRA attack team. Re-assuringly Kent Police at the time were on priority work doing Red Arrows Club Ramsgate for failing to keep a proper visitor log.

Do please show this to County Solicitor as I am sure he will be immediately cognisant that KCC has statutory duties to report in such matters under the Terrorism Act 2000. And may have a file even the contents of which should have been disseminated to depts. with relevant duties at KCC.

This would appear to extend too to your economic development dept who, instead of compliance with money laundering regs and duties to report under Terrorism Act 2000, chose instead to report misgivings to a potential investor in the River Oak application to acquire Manston Airport. The investor later obeyed duties to report and duly informed Chief constable. Who decided to engage his economic crime unit to make inquiries. And since Kent Police do have Aarhus Convention duties the Sericol water contamination history should have been raised with KCC a year ago by police.

Yours sincerely,

Richard Card

 

Information request
Our reference: 1640333

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

Dear Mr Card 

Further to your complaint dated 17th May 2018, I have undertaken a review
of the Council's response to your original request for information; this
is in accordance with your rights under the Freedom of Information Act
2000 (FOIA). 

On 9th April 2018 you asked Kent County Council (KCC) to disclose the
reasons KCC did not seek to enforce a public health long term epidemiology
inquiry stated required by Health Protection Agency 2009. (Sericol
contamination of Thanet water supply) and we confirmed that KCC did not
hold any information falling under the scope of your request and set out
the reasons why. 

Our response at the time was provided outside of statutory timescales.
This was acknowledged at the time and an apology provided but because this
did not form part of your complaint I have not considered this mater as
part of my review. 

Following our response to your original request you wrote to suggesting
that " You would require the information to be on record under Aarhus
Convention and Environmental Information Regulations. And to be subject of
information your economic development officers avail to people such as
potential investors in the attempt to acquire Manston Airport. The
information would have created a duty on KCC Public Health to promote the
epidemiology inquiry deemed necessary by your predecessors".

In reviewing your request I have consulted with relevant teams and have
taken into consideration their comments as follows:

KCC's Public Health Team have confirmed that Public Health has nothing to
add to the original response provided as we do not hold any information
that has been requested.

KCC's Head of Economic Development advises the point raised about us
trying to interest possible investors in the airport site did not require
KCC to undertake any statutory or non statutory inquiries of the kind you
describe. KCC was not an agent acting for the sellers nor the buyers. So
that's why we hold no information on the site: PWC (who were agents for
the sellers) organised a data room but KCC saw no reason to access this
and so did not.

I have now completed my review and can confirm that that we maintain our
original position in that we do not hold any information falling under the
scope of your request and we are therefore unable to uphold your
complaint.

It may assist you to know that the right of access under the Freedom of
Information Act and the Environmental Information Regulations is to
'recorded information' held by public bodies. The legislation confers no
right of access to the opinions or thoughts of Council staff or Members
unless that information is held in a recorded form at the time a request
is received. Where information is not held, there is no obligation for
public bodies to create information in order to satisfy requests.

If you still remain dissatisfied following this internal review, you can
appeal to the Information Commissioner, who oversees compliance with the
Freedom of Information Act 2000. Details of what you need to do, should
you wish to pursue this course of action, are available from the
Information Commissioner's website http://www.ico.org.uk/complaints

 

Yours sincerely

 
 
Pauline Banks
Information Governance Specialist
Strategic and Corporate Services
+443000415811
 
NOTE: Please do not edit the subject line when replying to this email.