Planning issues including enforcement

The request was refused by Lancashire County Council.

Dear Lancashire County Council,

Please provide answers on the following:

1. During communications with LCC Development Management, it has been stated that LCC would not enforce planning conditions against LCC as the applicant. Please confirm here what has previously been communicated to that effect. Your subsequent communications from the applicant dispute this. The answer should be from the officer who provided the original guidance i.e. Jonathan Haine . Please also confirm you have stated alternative agencies for enforcement being the Police and Preston City Council. I have made representation requesting Preston City Council enforce your conditions and you have communicated to Preston City Council requesting my request be ignored. Please provide a copy of your correspondence. Please confirm how many conditions attached to LCC applications remain not met and how many enforcement orders have been applied for.

2. LCC Highways have communicated with Lancashire Police stating the turning head at SD 52977 34253 is not a turning head. Please confirm the actual designation.

3. The same team have stated that drainage from land SD 52980 34238 has been working to the design. I have asked for the design including calculations of flow etc. Please provide the drainage engineers design over and above the plan. This has been promised but not supplied. It suggests the planners have never had a design, is this correct and if so how can it be stated that it is working to design.

4. Please provide a copy of the rejected report around the Noise survey for the planning condition for the additional lane on the Bypass.

5. Please confirm that the maintenance of the landscaping is being upkept in line with the passed application drawings and plans. Please confirm that the footpath between the bypass and Church is accessible to all and should remain so. Please state the dates for the most recent full inspections by LCC not simply a drive past.

6. Please confirm how many complaints the LCC Development Management team have received in the last 6 months and how many have been managed in line with process.

7. Please provide details of how the Chinese wall operates between LCC Development Management and LCC as applicant.

Yours faithfully,

Simon Watson

Freedom of Information, Lancashire County Council

Good morning,

 

Request for Information under the Freedom of Information Act (2000)

 

We are writing to acknowledge receipt of your enquiry of 17.11.20 in which
you request the disclosure of information.

 

We can confirm that your enquiry will now be assigned to an officer who
will commence a search for the information you require and they will
respond in due course. The deadline date for issuing you with a full
response is 16.12.20. We will endeavour to provide a response well in
advance of this date, however, should we envisage any delays, or require
more details from you, we will contact you immediately.

 

If you have any queries about the above, please do not hesitate to contact
us, quoting ref 984.1309 (MS).

 

Please note that due to the ongoing Coronavirus epidemic the County
Council's resources are being diverted to cover critical functions and
some employees have had to make changes to their usual working
arrangements.  This means that, despite our best efforts, there may be a
delay in issuing our response to you.  We appreciate that this may cause
some inconvenience but we trust you understand that, in the current
crisis, it is inevitable that some delays may be experienced.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

On Behalf of the Information Governance Team Lancashire County Council PO
Box 78 County Hall Preston

PR1 8XJ

 

show quoted sections

Broughton Bypass, Lancashire County Council

Dear Simon,

 

We write further to your request of 17 November.

 

The County Council's Information Governance Team have advised that, due to
the nature of the information you are seeking, the matter has been
considered under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 ('the
EIRs') and the response is set out as follows.

 

Your request is refused by virtue of regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIRs on
the grounds that it is manifestly unreasonable.  This decision has been
made due to the commitment of resources that would be required to collate
the information you have requested.

 

As we have explained to you previously, whilst there is no specific
definition of what is 'manifestly unreasonable', it is a useful comparator
to refer to the Freedom of Information and Data Protection (Appropriate
Limit and Fees) Regulations 2004 (SI No. 3244 of 2004), which provide that
requests under the similar provisions of the Freedom of Information Act
2000 can be refused where collating information would take in excess of
£450.

 

Additionally, those regulations (at regulation 5) state that a public
authority can aggregate the cost of dealing with multiple requests in
certain circumstances.  These are:

 

·         The requests are received from the same person

·         They relate, to any extent, to the same or similar information

·         They are all received within a period of 60 working days

 

Please note that complying with this request alone would exceed the
appropriate limit.  In addition to that, we must consider other recent
requests you have made, one of which was also refused in itself due to
being manifestly unreasonable (exceeding cost limits), and that there is
an ongoing ICO investigation into that (for which the ICO are yet to issue
a Decision Notice).  Furthermore, you have another outstanding request for
information that was received earlier this month.  These additional
requests relate to the same or similar information, and as such this is
being taken into consideration in our application of the exception to the
duty to disclose set out at regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIRs.

 

Although we acknowledge that there is a general public interest in the
County Council being as open and transparent as possible with regards to
requests for environmental information, this must be considered against
the strong public interest in ensuring that vital County Council resources
are not diverted from core tasks, particularly at a time when all services
are facing additional pressures due to the ongoing Covid 19 pandemic.  We
must also consider the wider public interest in diverting resources from
other requests in order to respond to multiple and overlapping requests
from a single applicant.  We have concluded on this occasion that the
public interest favours maintaining the exception to disclosure at
Regulation 12(4)(b).

 

Whilst we have a duty to provide advice and assistance in order to help
you amend your request to bring it within reasonable limits, given the
particular nature of this refusal it is difficult to suggest such
amendments.  However we would advise that, going forward, you await
responses to ongoing requests (and/or internal reviews/ICO investigations)
and your regular scheduled updates before submitting further requests for
the same or similar information.  Additionally, when requesting
information we would ask that you make it as clear as possible as to the
specific information you are seeking.  We remind you that requests under
the EIRs (and the FOI Act) are for recorded information that is held by
the County Council.

 

Please note this is not an attempt to prevent you from obtaining
information to which you are entitled, but is simply a necessary step we
must take to ensure our resources are not excessively diverted from other
tasks.

 

If you are dissatisfied with this response we would advise you on this
occasion to refer the matter directly to the ICO (contact details for
which you already have) rather than request an internal
review/reconsideration.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Lancashire County Council

show quoted sections

Dear Broughton Bypass,

Many thanks for your reply. I have used this process given the inconclusive and contradictory information provided in the past along with the failings of the communication.

I have tried to assist and help expedite the escalation to the ICO, however that process requires me to ask for an internal review. I have therefore stated this has been requested but refused to enable this to go through.

I understood several years ago when you stated the process would be 'hard' between us but it really needn't have been and i was surprised by your stance. I hope this process will ensure we can get to the key issues and then get them resolved.

I hope you stay safe and can have a peaceful Christmas.

Yours sincerely,

Simon Watson

Broughton Bypass, Lancashire County Council

Simon,

 

Thank you for your email.

 

Emails received in this mailbox will receive my attention and will be
forwarded accordingly.  Matters will be addressed and a response provided,
where appropriate, in the written update to you.

 

Thank you.

 

Kind Regards,

 

Marcus  

 

Marcus Hudson

Planning Manager

Planning and Environment Service

Lancashire County Council

 

 

show quoted sections

Dear Marcus Hudson,

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

I am informed by Alex Groat, that you have failed in your legal requirements. You are legally bound under the EIR to undertake an internal review and this is another example of failings by you to understand and complete simple obligations.

I am writing to request an internal review of Lancashire County Council's handling of my FOI request 'Planning issues including enforcement'.

Alex will formally be writing to you to lay this out so that you can revisit in a proper professional manner and in the hope that you simply do not brush it again under the carpet.

Given these matters relate to the planning team (a separate arm of LCC) Please confirm that this failing has been brought to the attention of Andrew Mullaney and Jonathan Haine.

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

Yours faithfully,

Simon Watson

P.S. Given I have highlighted the death of a family member of a member of staff you have worked with for over 20 years, it seems no acknowledgement is synonymous with how you have treated us throughout.

Hudson, Marcus, Lancashire County Council

Dear Simon,

 

I write further to your email of 18 January in which you request an
internal review of our refusal of your request dated 17 November 2020
('Planning issues including enforcement').

 

I have considered the original request, the response of 16 December and
noted your comments.

 

I am satisfied that the refusal was appropriate in the circumstances and
that the application of regulation 12(4)(b) of the Environmental
Information Regulations 2004 was correct.  This is because the costs that
would be incurred in answering this, and other requests you have made for
the same or similar information, would be excessive and the 'manifestly
unreasonable' exception applies to the request(s).

 

In coming to this conclusion I have also had regard to the recent Decision
Notice by the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO), reference
IC-42805-P2P2 dated 11 January 2021, in which they confirm that the County
Council was correct to refuse to supply similar information to you  on the
grounds that the cost of doing so would be manifestly unreasonable.

 

If you are dissatisfied with this response you may refer the matter to the
ICO for their consideration.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Lancashire County Council

 

show quoted sections

Hudson, Marcus, Lancashire County Council

Hudson, Marcus would like to recall the message, "Request for Internal Review - number 1 Ref. 1000.3".

show quoted sections

Broughton Bypass, Lancashire County Council

Dear Simon,

 

I write further to your email of 18 January in which you request an
internal review of our refusal of your request dated 17 November 2020
('Planning issues including enforcement').

 

I have considered the original request, the response of 16 December and
noted your comments.

 

I am satisfied that the refusal was appropriate in the circumstances and
that the application of regulation 12(4)(b) of the Environmental
Information Regulations 2004 was correct.  This is because the costs that
would be incurred in answering this, and other requests you have made for
the same or similar information, would be excessive and the 'manifestly
unreasonable' exception applies to the request(s).

 

In coming to this conclusion I have also had regard to the recent Decision
Notice by the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO), reference
IC-42805-P2P2 dated 11 January 2021, in which they confirm that the County
Council was correct to refuse to supply similar information to you  on the
grounds that the cost of doing so would be manifestly unreasonable.

 

If you are dissatisfied with this response you may refer the matter to the
ICO for their consideration.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Lancashire County Council

 

 

 

show quoted sections