Rainton Bridge Business Park

The request was successful.

Dear Sunderland City Council,

Please can you provide a list of all tenants at the Evolve Centre (http://www.e-volve.sunderland.gov.uk/ten...) and businesses at the Rainton Bridge Business Park (http://www.raintonbridge.com/the-park/hi...) where you have provided financial support and/or assistance since the opening.

Please provide:

- Details of any Rent/Business rate reduction provided
- Details of any Accommodation/relocation grant(s) directly provided and/or supported (eg relocation grant received by other organisations such as One North East)

Yours faithfully,

James Burke

Solicitor - Freedom of Information, Sunderland City Council

Dear James,

I confirm that your request for information has been received and is receiving attention.

The Council aims to provide available information promptly and in any event within 20 working days, unless, exceptionally, there is a need to consider whether the information is exempt from disclosure. Please note that there may be a charge for providing copies of the information. If the cost of complying with your request in full exceeds £450, we will ask you to reconsider your request, or to pay a fee before the information is supplied. If we need to ask you to refine your request or to pay a charge or fee we will let you know. Please quote the reference below if you contact the Council regarding this request.

Yours sincerely,

[email address]

Our reference: Customer number: 15 and RFI number 1011-52-15

show quoted sections

Dear Solicitor - Freedom of Information,

I would be grateful if you could provide a reply to this FOI request that was due on the 22nd December 2010.

Yours sincerely,

James Burke

James Burke left an annotation ()

This request has been refused by Sunderland City Council who cite:

"The council is aware that One North East has made a decision not to
provide any further information under section 14(1) of the Freedom of
Information Act 2000 and have noted the requests you have submitted are
related in substance. As a result the total volume of requests that you
have submitted have been considered and as a consequence section 14(1)
applies which states that "Section 1(1) does not oblige a public
authority to comply with a request for information if the request is
vexatious"

See refusal at http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/th... for further details.

Dear Sunderland City Council,

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

I am writing to request an internal review of Sunderland City Council's handling of my FOI request 'Rainton Bridge Business Park'.

In your refusal notice at http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/th... you say that:

The council is aware that One North East has made a decision not to provide any further information under section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and have noted the requests you have submitted are related in substance. As a result the total volume of requests that you have submitted have been considered and as a consequence section 14(1) applies which states that "Section 1(1) does not oblige a public authority to comply with a request for information if the request is vexatious".

The reasoning for this decision echoes the findings of One NorthEast in that the submission of 149 Freedom of Information requests can be viewed as unreasonable and the requests that have now been submitted to Sunderland City Council are following the same pattern. In the Information Commissioners Decision notice Case Ref: FS50099755 it was considered entirely appropriate to consider the aggregated effect of dealing with all requests known to have been made across the public sector. It is therefore viewed that each successive request represents a continuation of behaviour following on from the requests made to One NorthEast.

In relation to Information Commissioners Decision notice Case Ref: FS50099755 that you quote I note "that in line with Awareness Guidance No 22, The Commissioner’s general approach
has been to consider whether the Cabinet Office has demonstrated that the
requests;

- would impose a significant burden on the public authorities taken together;
- have the effect of harassing them; or
- could otherwise fairly be characterised as obsessive or manifestly unreasonable."

I would be grateful for an internal review to be carried out and as part of that review I would be grateful if you could clarify which of the above criteria you consider to be relevant to your refusal notice.

I would also like the internal review to confirm that One North East, which you cite in your refusal notice, and/or anybody connected with One North East and/or the companies at Rainton Business Park to which this FOI request relates, have not influenced your refusal notice.

For the avoidance of doubt this request was made following a press release regarding Rainton Bridge Business Park at http://www.raintonbridge.com/news/leight... with the following paragraphs from that press release included below for info:

Leighton Group, the parent company of six subsidiary IT and design companies, is moving its entire operation into 8,866 sq ft at the Chase Building, Rainton Bridge Business Park on a five year lease at the end of the month. Their rapid expansion over the past three years has prompted the relocation of its 85 staff to Goodman’s neighbouring grade A premises.

Gerard Callaghan, co-director at the Leighton Group, said: “The move to Rainton Bridge Business Park was an easy decision for the company to make. The high standard of build quality and the flexibility offered by Goodman to help us tailor our office space to our exacting requirements were key factors in our decision to move to the site.

“The park’s location in the heart of the north east was also key. We have staff located across the region and the park’s centrality allows everybody easy access to and from work and the new public transport links now running to the site make it even more appealing.

"While the e.volve centre was the perfect location for the company after moving from Doxford International, it has now grown to the point where we wanted the benefits of having our own office space and we are certain our new base will make an impact on the company’s future performance.“

Niall McGilp, regional development director for Goodman, said: “We welcome the Leighton Group and wish them continued success in their new office environment. By working closely with the team at Leighton Group we have been able to tailor the accommodation to their needs and provide them with a space that will support their future growth.

The company’s move to Rainton Bridge Business Park is a great success story and hopefully there will be more north east companies following in its footsteps to bigger and better things.”

Councillor Paul Watson Leader of Sunderland City Council said: "The Council is very proud of this Sunderland company with whom we’ve had a strong relationship for many years and we are delighted to be able to assist them develop their business further as they move into new premises at Rainton Bridge.

“Through the Sunderland Software City initiative the city is building a strong reputation for supporting new software entrepreneurs, as well as helping established businesses grow and prosper. As a city council we are committed to helping high tech businesses set up and grow in Sunderland, and believe we do this by driving forward initiatives that benefit them.

“We will work closely with our partners at the University of Sunderland to make certain that the knowledge, skills and people are available for these exciting new companies, and will continue to work closely with the Leighton Group to help them grow and increase employment in Sunderland."

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

Yours faithfully,

James Burke

James Burke left an annotation ()

See note regarding "149" requests actually relating to 8 separate FOI requests which is currently being reviewed by the ICO - http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/su...

Solicitor - Freedom of Information, Sunderland City Council

Mr Burke,

I acknowledge your e mail regarding your request for a review.

I can confirm that this will be now removed from the Directorate in
question and allocated to an officer independent of the original
decision to undertake a review. The review will normally take twenty
working days, however should there be a delay you will be kept informed.

Yours sincerely

Mr Darren Rigg
Information Manager

show quoted sections

Solicitor - Freedom of Information, Sunderland City Council

Dear Mr Burke

1. I write in connection with your requests for review of the Council's handling of your Freedom of Information (FOI) requests entitled The Difference Engine (found at http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/th...) and Rainton Bridge Business Park (found at http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ra...). Your review requests have been passed to me for attention and will be considered together due to the commonality of the reasons cited in refusal.

2. The refusal notice issued to you on 23 December 2010 regarding your enquiries as above cited vexatiousness as the reason for refusal - Section 14(1) of the FOI Act referring. I will address your points of appeal individually:-

Points of Appeal: The Difference Engine

3. Your e-mail of 23 December cites two points of appeal: if I may address each in turn -

4. "I do not believe that the FOI requests that you have referred to in
connection with One North East have any relevance here. Can you
direct me to the relevant section in the Act where you feel this is
appropriate."

5. I have reviewed Mr Donkin's refusal notice of 23 December and note that it contains reference to Information Commissioner (ICO) Decision Notice FS 50099755, which deals with the consideration of multiple FOI requests made to multiple Public Authorities (PAs).

6. It may be helpful at this point to clarify an FOI point you may not have appreciated. The right to request information under FOI extends to information that is held by a PA at the time a given request is received (Section 1(4), FOI Act refers). Where a PA issues a reply to a request that provides the requested information, refuses it or advises that it is not held by the PA, that request is - under the terms of the legislation - closed.

7. In this light, while a casual observer may conclude you have only issued three FOI requests to the Council via the whatdotheyknow.com site, under the terms of the legislation, you have actually submitted seven requests for information, as detailed at Appendix 1. While this is relevant to the Council in terms of the public resources fulfilment of those requests requires, it is of particular relevance when considering whether or not it is proper to bear your other FOI activities in mind when evaluating the application of Section 14(1). In this regard I have reviewed all FOI requests submitted by you through whatdotheyknow.com and have found a similar pattern, in which many of your requests are, legally, closed but are kept open on the website by your subsequent requests for 'clarification' or fresh information. As at 5 January 2011, whatdotheyknow displayed 14 FOI Requests from you, but examination of those 14 'headline' requests confirmed that they comprised of a total of 184 requests for information. I hope this clarifies the position in relation to your annotation of 24 December 2010 regarding the (then-cited) "149 requests".

8. While the FOI Act does not contain any limits on the number of requests an individual may submit, large numbers of queries from the same requestor may have something to say about a PA's obligations to respond. Section 12, FOI Act allows for the cost / resource impact of a person's requests to be taken into account in determining whether there is an obligation to respond to a request, with Section 12(4) in particular allowing for the aggregation of multiple requests to get a picture of the overall burden that a particular requestor's enquiries involves.

9. The circumstances in which Section 12 considerations can lead directly to a refusal are limited, but consideration of an individual's 'request behaviour' can be similarly relevant to other, linked considerations - in this case, whether or not a request can fairly be considered vexatious.

10. In section 5 of ICO Decision Notice FS50099755, the ICO notes that "...the Cabinet Office (as the public authority dealing with the request) and he (as the person required to consider the complaint) are entitled to take into account their knowledge as to the total volume of requests made by the same individual". Accordingly, and bearing in mind the similarities between the 'follow-on' nature many of the requests submitted to other PA's and those submitted to the Council my view is that the principle discussed in the decision notice is relevant and applicable to your case. Accordingly, I consider evidence of your wider requests to other PA's is relevant in consideration to your requests to the Council, and that you were directed to the relevant section of the Act - Section 14(1) - in Mr Donkin's refusal notice of 23 December. Your first Point of Appeal is, therefore, not upheld.

11. "Your responses above, whilst helpful, are currently incomplete -
this clarification that I am seeking is aiming for closure which I
hope that you will provide without internal review/appeal."

12. Your second Point of Appeal suggests a misunderstanding of the legislation which I hope I have clarified at paragraphs 6 & 7 above.

Points of Appeal: Rainton Bridge Business Park

13. Your e-mail of 23 December includes two specific enquiries: if I may address each in turn -

14. "In relation to Information Commissioners Decision notice Case Ref:
FS50099755 that you quote I note "that in line with Awareness
Guidance No 22, The Commissioner's general approach
has been to consider whether the Cabinet Office has demonstrated
that the
requests;

- would impose a significant burden on the public authorities taken
together;
- have the effect of harassing them; or
- could otherwise fairly be characterised as obsessive or
manifestly unreasonable."

I would be grateful for an internal review to be carried out and as
part of that review I would be grateful if you could clarify which
of the above criteria you consider to be relevant to your refusal
notice."

15. It is important to acknowledge that the reference cited here, and application of the principles therein to your own case both rely on seeing an individual's FOI requests and correspondence in the round. In this regard, it was felt that your Rainton Bridge Business Park request is typical of the line of questioning that seems to me to cover thematically similar subject matter to those of all bar one your other FOI requests to date, namely the management and funding of local business and investment initiatives. Your earlier FOI requests to the Council (The Difference Engine and The Difference Engine Travel, Subsistence and Marketing), taken together with your wider FOI activities, very strongly suggested that response to this particular request would be met with the same requests for "clarifications" as in the great majority of your other whatdotheyknow.com requests. Taken - as it undoubtedly is - as one request for information amongst the 180+ you have submitted via whatdotheyknow.com to date, your Rainton Bridge Business Park can only add to the administrative burden that requests to date have involved.

16. Whether this constitutes a 'significant burden' is a matter of comparing the facts of the case to the applicable rules and regulations: in legislative terms, we are helped towards a definition of 'significant burden' by the Freedom of Information and Data Protection (Appropriate Fees and Limits) Regulations 2004 (S.I. 2004 No 3244) - aka the Fees Regulations, as referenced by Section 12, FOI Act - the right to refuse requests that would incur resources in excess of statutory limits. Here, the regulations allow for the refusal of requests requiring in excess of £450 (£600 for central government departments) of officer time to fulfil: in practice, this equates to 18 working hours (24 for central government departments) at the statutory rate of £25 per hour.

17. The Fees Regulations also allow for PA's to add together requests when calculating the resourcing needs as above, in cases where those requests relate, to any extent, to the same or similar information. In the cases of your requests to date, almost all are thematically similar in that they relate to details of funding and management around certain local business and investment initiatives.

18. Although a direct refusal under Fees Limits would only be triggered by the receipt of 'fees-busting' requests within a 60 working day period, the principles of fees limits and the aggregation of public resource requirements does provide a reasonable 'barometer' for considering 'significant burden' in the context of vexatiousness.

19. In simple mathematical terms, to respond to all of your questions across public authorities to date within the resources that the Fees Regulations suggest are acceptable would require every one of the 180+ questions you have asked to date to be answerable in between six and eight minutes apiece. Given that answering a question is only the last stage in the process of determining whether the relevant information is held and - if so - locating it and extracting it into a releasable format, it is very likely that the notional 'significant burden' figures have already been exceeded by your series of requests. In this regard, I find that continuance of your line of questioning can reasonably be said to constitute a significant burden overall.

20. In the course of reviewing your case I have not found any evidence of any intent to harass the Council or other public authorities, but am mindful that this cannot guarantee that your requests will not have 'harassing effects'. The term harass can cover a broad spectrum of cause and effect and can include subjecting, or being subjected to constant interference: while I do not suggest any intention on your part to harass or interfere with the workings of PAs, if your questions have had the effect of diverting organisations or their officers from their core business, one cannot escape the fact that one of the effects of these questions has been to interfere. In this regard, and while I cannot speak for other PA's, I can confirm that the team responsible for the information you seek within Sunderland Council is a small one and as such can be disproportionately affected by a chain of requests.

21. In the cases of your requests under The Difference Engine, Difference Engine Travel, Subsistence & Marketing and Rainton Bridge Business Park, providing responses to your questions has, to a degree, diverted the corresponding officer from his core public duties. It must be acknowledged, however, that the requests directed at the Council are only a part of the 180-plus requests for information you have directed to a number of public authorities in the region. There will, therefore, be a wider effect on publicly-funded business and services due directly to the wider scope of your overall FOI enquiries.

22. The degree to which this could fairly be seen as 'harassing' the Council is, I would suggest, inversely proportional to the public interest in the subject matter of your questions. That is, where it can be shown that a request requires diversion of Council resources that will benefit the Public by promoting greater awareness or informing public debate on a matter of broad significance or contention, any harassing effects will be proportionally less significant in the round as those that might be incurred in answering a request of lesser public value. The same consideration applies to your wider requests.

23. Characterising requests as obsessive or manifestly unreasonable can be difficult - possibly inappropriate - in cases involving an isolated request or question. However, where individuals submit large numbers of enquiries, obsessive or unreasonable behaviour - if present - is more likely to identify itself. Because of their nature, obsessive or unreasonable actions or behaviours can only reasonably be characterised against a wider understanding of a person's circumstances or motives. In this respect deciding on the qualification, or otherwise, of a given request as obsessive or manifestly unreasonable will of necessity require consideration of a rather wider picture than the single request in question. Accordingly, consideration of your wider FOI activities becomes relevant, as discussed in principle in decision notice FS50099755 as cited.

24. Public authorities are at liberty to disclose information if it is the case that an outwardly obsessive or unreasonable case involves information that would be of genuine public interest. In this sense, the determination to make requires a similar balancing exercise in the considerative process to the issue of harassment - weighing the effect of a request as part of an overall picture of a pattern of requests (and the effects on publicly-funded public authorities of answering it) against potential benefit to the public of actioning the disclosure.

25. In this case, the weighing exercise has not been an easy one owing to the number of requests you have submitted overall and the cross-referencing of queries, responses, notes and annotations that these have involved. At first blush, the subject matter of your requests would appear to be of interest to the public, as they appear to concern themselves with matters of public funding and finance. However, closer examination of the breadth and specificity of many of your requests and 'clarifications' make the identification of any immediately apparent public interest 'direction' or 'message' rather more difficult. Put simply, while your line of enquiry is clearly of interest to you, no benefit to the wider public interest has yet been shown.

26. Although not stated directly in the wording of the legislation the FOI Act has, through codes of practice and official guidance, become 'purpose blind' to all intents and purposes. The effect of this is that a public authority cannot (with a very few exceptions relating to such issues as health & safety, national security etc) allow a person's intended use of official information to determine whether or not they receive it. When evaluating the likelihood of public benefit against the cost to the public purse - as is the case in this review - an intended (or even reasonably possible) use of requested information can be of marked significance in determining whether a request should be ruled vexatious or be recognised as in the public interest: that is - while it might not be possible for a public authority to discern a value to the public in the release of particular information, this does not necessarily mean that no such value exists. I find that this is the situation that arises in relation to this case.

27. In the course of reviewing your requests for information I have, as previously stated, looked at your requests to Sunderland City Council in the context of their being part of a wider 'picture' of thematically similar enquiries. Although a great deal of detail has been requested, and quite some significant detail released in response, in the course of your requests to date it is not clear what value the disclosures in question would have to a wider readership. The depth and detail in your requests suggests a degree of familiarity on your part with the subject matter at hand but the value of the same information to a wider readership is not apparent. As an example, while it is clear that you are interested in the transfer of the Council's capital contribution to the North East Business & Innovation Centre it is very difficult to see what tangible benefit this information can offer the wider public.

28. Accordingly, at this point, the balance between the value of requested information to a wider public and the value of public servants being able to deliver public services lies significantly in the latter direction. In the terms explored above therefore, the adverse (or 'harassing') effects on public authorities - of which the Council is one - of answering your questions are not outweighed by a clearly made argument to support responding. Further, by any measure 180+ thematically similar requests for information would be likely to strike some observers as perhaps obsessive in nature: as discussed above, at present the value of your most recent requests beyond your own interest in a fairly specialised area has not been made clear and as such the theoretical observer's impression of obsession in the course of enquiry is therefore the only case currently being made.

29. I trust this answers your query as reproduced at paragraph 14 above.

30. "I would also like the internal review to confirm that One North
East, which you cite in your refusal notice, and/or anybody
connected with One North East and/or the companies at Rainton
Business Park to which this FOI request relates, have not
influenced your refusal notice."

31. It appears to me that there are two ways in which this request can be interpreted. If you are asking whether the Council has sought the views of other organisations on how to respond to your requests for information, the answer is no. If, however, you are asking whether knowledge of the many requests you have submitted to a range of other organisations (via whatdotheyknow, a public forum) and the resulting overall burden of those requests on the broader Public Purse has been taken into account in gauging whether there is justification for aggregating the effect of dealing with all of your requests across the public authorities you have approached then the answer is yes, as set out in paragraphs 27 and 28 above.

32. Having carefully considered your requests to the Council, and in conjunction with the principles explored in Decision Notice FS50099755, I am satisfied that this is a reasonable and lawful position to take.

Conclusion

33. Following consideration of your case by reference to a review of the history of your requests to Sunderland City Council and beyond, I am unable to uphold your points of appeal. That is -

- I am satisfied that my colleague's view of your requests to the Council as being a part of a wider pattern of activity was reasonable, relevant and lawful.

- I am satisfied that your initial enquiry titled The Difference Engine was, in FOI terms, answered and closed by my colleague's correspondence of 21 April. The Council's response should have been issued by 20 April to remain within the 20 working day deadline, and for this late response I apologise. In the same FOI terms, however, your subsequent requests for 'clarification' were in fact new FOI requests.

- I am satisfied that your request for information on Rainton Bridge Business Park and continued requests for dates of capital transfer are vexatious in that they appear to lack any wider purpose or value, impose a burden on the Council (and, further afield, the wider Public Purse) that has not yet been justified and will have the effect of diverting publicly-funded resources from their core business purposes, thus interfering with those business purposes.

34. If you are unhappy with this response, you are, of course, entitled to
ask the Information Commissioner for his view on the matter. Should
you wish to pursue such a course of action, please contact the
Information Commissioner's Office directly. The Commissioner can be contacted at - [email address]

Yours sincerely,

O Thomas
Data Protection Officer
Law & Governance
Sunderland City Council
[Sunderland City Council request email]


Appendix 1

Timeline - James Burke FOI Requests to Sunderland City Council

I. The Difference Engine

22/03/2010 - Request A received via e-mail
22/03/2010 - Acknowledgement issued
21/04/2010 - Response issued

06/07/2010 - Request B received via e-mail
11/08/2010 - Reminder received via e-mail
25/08/2010 - Reminder received via e-mail
31/08/2010 - Reply issued - clarification of disclosure arrangements requested
31/08/2010 - Requestor response re: document to be disclosed
01/09/2010 - document status confirmed - already accessed by requestor from another source

07/10/2010 - Request C received via e-mail
06/11/2010 - Reminder received via e-mail
08/11/2010 - Reply issued

09/11/2010 - Request D received via e-mail
09/11/2010 - Reply issued

22/12/2010 - 'Reminder' received via e-mail
23/12/2010 - Reply (refusal) issued.

II. Difference Engine Travel, Subsistence & Marketing

06/11/2010 - Request A received via e-mail
11/11/2010 - Reply issued

11/11/2010 - Request B received via e-mail
06/12/2010 - Reply issued

III. Rainton Bridge Business Park

23/11/2010 - Request A received via e-mail
23/12/2010 - Reminder received via e-mail
23/12/2010 - Reply (refusal) issued.

show quoted sections

Dear Solicitor - Freedom of Information,

Thank you for your extremely comprehensive response to my request for review of FOI requests to Sunderland City Council.

I am grateful for the considerable time and resources expended on the refusal and review, which I note with interest, most likely far exceeded the time and resources that may have been incurred in the supply of the information I was seeking.

With reference to your points above:

7 – I note that you state you have “reviewed all FOI requests submitted by you through whatdotheyknow.com” and therefore assume that you are familiar with the subject matter and public interest related concerns raised therein.

15-19 Whilst these verbose paragraphs are interesting, at no previous time has Sunderland City Council cited fees and Section 12 of the FOI Act and so time spent on “reviewing” this area appears to be irrelevant and time wasted by the Council.

20-24 Thank you for confirming that there is no evidence that I have any intent to harass the Council. I am concerned that you appear to confirm that you have insufficient resource to respond to legitimate FOI requests and that when I follow up in response to your officer saying “I look forward to hearing from you” (http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/th...) you are effectively citing this as vexatious behaviour. If Sunderland City Council simply does not have the capacity to respond and fulfil its legal obligations then it is an area of concern for local government transparency.

25-28 With reference to point 7 and your comment “Put simply, while your line of enquiry is clearly of interest to you, no benefit to the wider public interest has yet been shown” I am concerned by your response. Although you acknowledge that requests should be “purpose blind” and that I do not expressly need to provide reasons why I am asking for certain information I note that you are aware, from your review as per point 7 above, the various public interest related concerns, eg: http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/su... & http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/th... highlight projects with apparent significant procurement irregularities that you and Sunderland City Council are aware of but continue to provide additional financial support to even though there may be a high risk that they may be subject to “clawback” of funds. I believe that this is in the wider public interest and am disappointed that you have preferred to expend considerable time and resources in trying to justify your failure to provide the responses sought from Sunderland Council.

Yours sincerely,

James Burke

James Burke left an annotation ()

Complaint submitted today to ICO as per http://www.ico.gov.uk/complaints/freedom...

James Burke left an annotation ()

ICO Decision Notice 3rd November 2011 (available: http://www.ico.gov.uk/tools_and_resource...) for cases FS50380006 and FS50374873) stated that:

43. The Commissioner's decision is that the council was not entitled to rely on section 14(1) to refuse to comply with the complainant's requests.

44. The Commissioner requires the council to reconsider the complainant's requests and either comply with section 1(1) or issue a valid refusal notice compliant with section 17.

Sunderland City Council left an annotation ()

Dear Mr Burke

Your request as above is currently under review and a response will be posted in due course.

Sincerely,

O Thomas
Snderland City Council

Dear Solicitor - Freedom of Information,

I would be grateful if you could provide an update on this request please - latest response 6th December: http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ra...

Yours sincerely,

James Burke

Dear Solicitor - Freedom of Information,

I would be grateful if you could provide an update on this overdue request please.

The request was initially made on 23 November 2010 but refused under section 14(1) on the 23rd December 2010. This was appealed and a complaint made to the ICO who issued a decision notice on the 3rd November 2011 stating:

43. The Commissioner's decision is that the council was not entitled to rely on section 14(1) to refuse to comply with the complainant's requests.

44. The Commissioner requires the council to reconsider the complainant's requests and either comply with section 1(1) or issue a valid refusal notice compliant with section 17.

On the 6th December 2011 an O Thomas from Sunderland City Council said "Your request as above is currently under review and a response will be posted in due course.", this is the latest correspondence received to date.

I would be grateful if you could now provide this information.

Yours sincerely,

James Burke

James Burke left an annotation ()

Note: The ICO was contacted via email on 21st Feb 2012 seeking advice as following the ICO Decision Notice Sunderland City Council do not appear to be responding to requests to provide information.

Background:

The request was initially made on 23 November 2010 but refused
under section 14(1) on the 23rd December 2010. This was appealed
and a complaint made to the ICO who issued a decision notice on the
3rd November 2011 stating:

43. The Commissioner's decision is that the council was not
entitled to rely on section 14(1) to refuse to comply with the
complainant's requests.

44. The Commissioner requires the council to reconsider the
complainant's requests and either comply with section 1(1) or issue
a valid refusal notice compliant with section 17.

On the 6th December 2011 an O Thomas from Sunderland City Council
said "Your request as above is currently under review and a
response will be posted in due course.", this is the latest
correspondence received to date.

A follow up request was sent to Sunderland City Council on 26th January 2012, no reply was received.

A follow up request was sent to Sunderland City Council on 17th February 2012, no reply was received.

Sue Patel left an annotation ()

It's really not acceptable that Sunderland have not responded to this very reasonable request. What is they continued refusal costing the Council Tax Payer of Sunderland. I have raised my own request about this here :

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/co...

If councillors for political reasons are responsible blocking of lawful FOI Requests they should be held to account and prosecuted.

Well done for pursuing this. I also wonder if apart from the ICO, The Local Government Ombudsman should be informed. Possibly also the European auditors as I believe this facility is part funded with European money.

Solicitor - Freedom of Information, Sunderland City Council

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Burke,

Please find attached the response to your request for information regarding the evolve Business Centre and Rainton Bridge Business Park.

Regards

Darren Rigg
Information Governance Officer
Law and Governance
Commercial and Corporate Services
Sunderland City Council
0191 561 1941
www.sunderland.gov.uk

show quoted sections

Sue Patel left an annotation ()

Um, blocked again eh . Seems like spurious reasons to me. May I suggest that you :

1. Ask for a list of the names of companies asked to respond and their reasons for not responding
2. Request data for companies that did not object
3. "Do the math"

You may like to check that the council is interpreting "grants" as including rent and rate holidays too.

You could take this one back to the ICO - or you could try an alternative approach -

Audit Commission Act 1998, sections 15 – 16
Accounts and Audit Regulations 2003 Regulations 13, 14 and 16

"Each year the Council’s accounts are audited and any person interested has the opportunity to inspect and make copies of the accounts and all books, deeds, contracts, bills, vouchers and receipts relating to them. "

Good luck

Dear Sunderland City Council,

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

I am writing to request an internal review of Sunderland City Council's handling of my FOI request 'Rainton Bridge Business Park'.

Many thanks for your reply and second refusal notice for this request that was originally submitted on the 23rd November 2010.

I would like to request a further review, and as stated in your refusal notice, I would like this to be carried out by an officer independent of the original decision dated 2nd March 2012 (sections 43(1) and 41(1)) and also independent of your previous refusal on the 23rd December 2010 (section 14(1)) that was overturned by the ICO on the 3rd November 2011.

I would be grateful if you could pass on the following notes in connection with your internal review.

Re: refusal citing section 43(1):

1 - You state that Sunderland City Council had to "consult with the businesses involved to ascertain their views" and that the "responses that the authority received were unanimous in that the release of information indicating whether financial support had been provided, and further details of rate reductions and grants, would be detrimental to their business.".

2 - Five responses were highlighted and provided and one of these responses would appear to indicate that this FOI request has been communicated by Sunderland City Council to the businesses in a potentially negative tone, eg reply from business: "It would tarnish the image of the company if its name were to be linked to any negative publicity surrounding the City Council’s incentives scheme. This in turn would undermine the company's ability to secure clients, since other businesses would not want to be associated with what would then effectively be a tarnished brand."

3 - I would be grateful if the internal review could address all communications between Sunderland City Council and the business, particularly with respect to potential bias and impartiality, and that Sunderland City Council also provides me with a copy of the letter and any other correspondence, meetings etc. conducted with businesses as part of this consultation.

4 - Thank you for providing the information that Sunderland City Council has awarded a total of 21 investment grants to software and related businesses at Rainton Bridge, with a total value of £278,000 creating 213 jobs. Thank you for also providing a link to the current list of 28 tenants at the Evolve Business Centre at Rainton Bridge: 5G Technologies, Achieve Success Limited, Actif, Aframe, Balfour Beatty Civil Engineering Ltd, Cabling Technology, Densen Digital Experiences, Dhrystones, Evolve North, Freshh!, GENI, Guroo Ltd, HBP Monpeillier Ltd, IMS, IPB Communications, Marketing-Geni, Matrix Orthopaedic Solutions, OnTrac Ltd, PCI Services, Rainton.net, Reflex Technical Solutions Limited, Rise Consultants, Solid Solutions, Sunderland Business Network, Sunderland Software City, Surreal Creative, The Test Factory, Unified Software. I would be grateful if the review could confirm that all of these companies were consulted with as per para 1.

5 - In the previous internal review relating to this FOI request on the 23rd December (http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ra...), I referenced, "for the avoidance of doubt" a press release still available at http://www.raintonbridge.com/news/leight... that cites support that the following companies has received from Sunderland City Council:  Leighton Ltd, The Communicator Corporation Ltd, WorkCast Ltd, SaleCycle Ltd and Business Education Publishers Ltd. None of these companies appear in the above list that you provided. This press release states: "Councillor Paul Watson Leader of Sunderland City Council said: "The Council is very proud of this Sunderland company with whom we’ve had a strong relationship for many years and we are delighted to be able to assist them develop their business further as they move into new premises at Rainton Bridge.".

6 - As per para 4, I would be grateful if the review could confirm that the companies cited in para 6 were consulted with as per para 1.

7 - Other businesses in para 4 have also chosen to release public press releases citing support from Sunderland City Council ("The support from Sunderland City Council’s business investment team encouraged the company to open a base on Wearside" http://www.nebusiness.co.uk/business-new... ) in addition to acknowledgement of grant funding from other bodies: http://www.sunderlandsoftwarecity.co.uk/...

8 - The refusal notice cites: "It is therefore considered by the council that section 43(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 is engaged and that the commercial interests of the businesses would be prejudiced.". Section 43(1) is concerned with trade secrets and section 43(2) is concerned with prejudice and commercial interest, I would be grateful if the review could clarify and confirm that section 43(1) is meant to be applied and not section 42(2).

9 - I would be grateful if the review could re-consider the appropriateness of applying section 43, and in particular the citing of "commercial interests of the businesses would be prejudiced" to businesses that have already chosen to issue a press release publicly acknowledging support received from Sunderland City Council as per paras 5 & 7.

10 - The following case ICO decision notices where complaints made against the application of section 43 have been upheld by the ICO may be of reference: FS50364680 (Sunderland City Council), FS50380505 (Lincolnshire County Council), FS50211784 (Central Bedfordshire Council) and FS50164262 (Bristol City Council)

Re: refusal citing section 41(1)

11 - The City of Sunderland Local Transparency Payments over £500 (http://www.sunderland.gov.uk/index.aspx?...) lists companies provided with grants and other support. I would be grateful if the review could consider the equality and parity regarding confidentiality of contracts for all companies where Sunderland City Council has elected to provide transparent information as part of regular Local Transparency Payments with the contracts for businesses as per paras 4 and 5 where Sunderland City Council is currently refusing to provide this information.

12 - In connection with para 11, I would be grateful if the review could consider para 9 where businesses have already elected to publicise support that they have received from Sunderland City Council.

13 - The following case ICO decision notices where complaints made against the application of section 43 have been upheld by the ICO may be of reference: FS50164262 (Bristol City Council), FS50155410 (London Borough of Islington) and
FS50155406 (Harrow Council)

I would be grateful if the information as originally requested on the 23rd November 2010 could be provided so that a second appeal to the ICO in relation to this request can be avoided.

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

Yours faithfully,

James Burke

James Burke left an annotation ()

Amendments to the internal review request for clarity:

Para 6 should read:

6 - As per para 4, I would be grateful if the review could confirm
that the companies cited in para 5 were consulted with as per para
1.

Para 8 should read:

8 - The refusal notice cites: "It is therefore considered by the
council that section 43(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000
is engaged and that the commercial interests of the businesses
would be prejudiced.". Section 43(1) is concerned with trade
secrets and section 43(2) is concerned with prejudice and
commercial interest, I would be grateful if the review could
clarify and confirm that section 43(2) is meant to be applied and
not section 43(1).

Solicitor - Freedom of Information, Sunderland City Council

Dear Mr Burke,

I acknowledge your request for review, in relation to your Freedom of Information Request regarding 'Rainton Bridge Business Park'.

I can confirm that this will be reviewed by an officer independent of the original decision and a response will be provided within fifteen working days, however should there be a delay you will be kept informed.

Yours sincerely

Darren Rigg
Information Governance Officer
Law and Governance
Commercial and Corporate Services
Sunderland City Council
0191 561 1941
www.sunderland.gov.uk

show quoted sections

Solicitor - Freedom of Information, Sunderland City Council

Dear Mr Burke,

I am writing to inform you that there will be a short delay in providing
a review of your Freedom of Information request. The reason being, that
officers have been unavailable, however it is anticipated that the
response will be ready by Tuesday 8th May.

Regards

Darren Rigg
Information Governance Officer
Commercial and Corporate Services
Sunderland City Council
0191 561 1941
www.sunderland.gov.uk

show quoted sections

Sunderland is aiming to become the most liveable city in the UK.
Visit www.Sunderland.gov.uk for Council services and information.
Business investors can access www.Investinsunderland.co.uk
Visitors to the City should log onto www.Visitsunderland.com

Dear Solicitor - Freedom of Information,

Thank you for your update.

I would be grateful if you could let me know the name of the officer(s) involved in this review.

Yours sincerely,

James Burke

Lynne Bennett, Sunderland City Council

4 Attachments

Dear Mr Burke,
Please find attached a letter in response to your request for an internal
review of the Council's handling of your FOI request "Rainton Bridge
Business Park."
Yours sincerely,
L. Bennett
 
Lynne Bennett
Senior Solicitor
Commercial and Corporate Services
Sunderland City Council
Telephone: 0191 561 1050
[1]www.sunderland.gov.uk
 

show quoted sections

Sunderland is aiming to become the most liveable city in the UK.
Visit www.Sunderland.gov.uk for Council services and information.
Business investors can access www.Investinsunderland.co.uk
Visitors to the City should log onto www.Visitsunderland.com

References

Visible links
1. file:///tmp/blocked::http:/www.sunderland.gov.uk

James Burke left an annotation ()

Note: A second complaint relating to this FOI request has today been made to the ICO as per http://www.ico.gov.uk/complaints/freedom...

Summary of FOI request to date:

This FOI request was initially made on 23 November 2010 but refused
under section 14(1) on the 23rd December 2010. This was appealed
and a complaint made to the ICO who issued a decision notice on the
3rd November 2011 stating:

43. The Commissioner's decision is that the council was not
entitled to rely on section 14(1) to refuse to comply with the
complainant's requests.

44. The Commissioner requires the council to reconsider the
complainant's requests and either comply with section 1(1) or issue
a valid refusal notice compliant with section 17.

On the 6th December 2011 an O Thomas from Sunderland City Council
said "Your request as above is currently under review and a
response will be posted in due course."

A follow up request was sent to Sunderland City Council on 26th January 2012, no reply was received.

A follow up request was sent to Sunderland City Council on 17th February 2012, no reply was received.

A second refusal was received on the 2nd March 2012.

A request for an internal review was made on the 11th April 2012.

Following a note re: "short delay" on the 3rd May 2012 a response relating to the second internal review was received on the 8th May 2012. Summary of outcome of internal review carried out by Lynne Bennet, Senior Solicitor, Sunderland City Council:

Para numbers relate to internal review request above: http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ra...

1 - reply: "I am advised that a sample of three tenants was considered appropriate and informal, verbal discussions took place with representatives of the three tenants selected in order to gauge their views. There are apparently no written records of these discussions."

2 - reply: "a pro-forma questionnaire – encapsulating the various concerns raised by the representatives - was forwarded to the three consultees for completion and return"

3 - reply: "Given my further comments above about the way in which the consultation was undertaken, there are no communications to provide to you in response to the request in paragraph 3 of your email save for a copy of the proforma questionnaire and the email under the cover of which it was sent. "

4 & 6 - reply: "With regard to the specific queries in paragraphs 4 and 5 of your email of 11th April, it is clearly not the case that all the businesses listed by you were consulted in connection with your request. In the first instance, only those in the list who had been in receipt of financial support from the Council would have been liable to have been consulted and to indicate to you who would be eligible for consultation would be to identify which those businesses were. As I have mentioned above, a sample of three relevant businesses was taken."

5 - reply: "You do claim in your email of 11 April, that certain businesses have already elected to publicise support that they have received from Sunderland City Council. However, I have viewed the links in question and can see no mention of anything other than general assistance and support. There is no indication whatsoever of the support being financial in nature. It would therefore appear that the information in question is indeed unavailable by other means."

James Burke left an annotation ()

The ICO has issued a SECOND decision notice on the 10th January November 2013 for case FS50448552 requesting that Sunderland City Council provide this information that was originally requested on the 23rd November 2010.

Summary of FOI request to date:

This FOI request was initially made on 23 November 2010 but refused under section 14(1) on the 23rd December 2010.

This was appealed and a complaint made to the ICO who issued a decision notice on the 3rd November 2011.

ICO Decision Notice 3rd November 2011 (available: http://www.ico.gov.uk/~/media/documents/...) for cases FS50380006 and FS50374873) stated that:

43. The Commissioner's decision is that the council was not entitled to rely on section 14(1) to refuse to comply with the complainant's requests.

44. The Commissioner requires the council to reconsider the complainant's requests and either comply with section 1(1) or issue a valid refusal notice compliant with section 17.

On the 6th December 2011 an O Thomas from Sunderland City Council said "Your request as above is currently under review and a response will be posted in due course."

A follow up request was sent to Sunderland City Council on 26th January 2012, no reply was received.

A follow up request was sent to Sunderland City Council on 17th February 2012, no reply was received.

A second refusal was received on the 2nd March 2012.

A request for an internal review was made on the 11th April 2012.

Following a note re: "short delay" on the 3rd May 2012 a response relating to the second internal review was received on the 8th May 2012.

This was appealed and a second complaint made to the ICO who issued a decision notice on the
10th January November 2013 for case FS50448552 stated

2. The Commissioner's decision is that the council has incorrectly applied section 41 and section 43 to withhold the requested information.

3. The Commissioner requires the council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
- Disclose the requested information to the complainant

4. The council must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of the decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to Section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.

Solicitor - Freedom of Information, Sunderland City Council

2 Attachments

Dear Mr Burke,

 

In response to the Information Commissioners decision notice, dated the
10^th January 2013 (Ref No. FS50448552), as you are aware, the council is
required to disclose the following information, as at the 10th November
2010:-

 

“Please can you provide a list of all tenants at the Evolve Centre and
businesses at the Rainton Bridge Business Park where you have provided
financial support and/or assistance since the opening.

 

Please provide:

 

Details of any Rent/Business rate reduction provided

Details of any Accommodation/relocation grant(s) directly provided and/or
supported (eg relocation grant received by other organisations such as One
North East).”

 

Attached as Appendix A is a spreadsheet, detailing companies where
financial support or assistance has been provided, since the opening of
the Evolve Centre and Rainton Bridge Business Park, along with the amount
paid. The financial assistance received by the companies detailed on the
attached spreadsheet does not include any element of rent or business rate
reduction. Relocation, e-location and job creation grants are calculated
and paid on the basis of the number of jobs to be created by the business.

 

Also attached as requested are details of other grants received from
information disclosed on application forms for financial assistance.

 

regards

 

Berni

 

Berni Whitaker

Enterprise Manager

Office of the Chief Executive

Sunderland City Council

0191 305 1205

[1]www.sunderland.gov.uk

 

[2]Description: Description: cid:360590712@14022013-26C6

 

 

show quoted sections

References

Visible links
1. http://www.sunderland.gov.uk/

Dear Solicitor - Freedom of Information,

Thank you for providing a spreadsheet as Appendix A.

I note that you state: "The financial assistance received by the companies detailed on the attached spreadsheet does not include any element of rent or business rate reduction.".

The original request on 23 November 2010 requested: "Details of any Rent/Business rate reduction provided".

The ICO Decision Notice (http://www.ico.gov.uk/~/media/documents/...) stated that Sunderland City Council should "Disclose the requested information to the complainant." and that the "council must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court." (see paragraphs 40-49 of http://www.ico.gov.uk/~/media/documents/...

I would therefore be grateful if you could provide this information.

Yours sincerely,

James Burke

Berni Whitaker, Sunderland City Council

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Burke,
 
in answer to your question regarding rent and rate reduction.
 
Rate reduction - The reason this has not been disclosed is that Sunderland
City Council's financial assistance scheme does not include any element of
business rate reduction. For the e-volve business centre the rates are
based against the whole buildings rateable value and then an amount per sq
ft is calculated which is included in the service charge element, which is
paid by tenants.
 
Rent -  Sunderland City Council's financial assistance scheme does offer a
Rent Relief Grant(RRG) however non of the companies on the spreadsheet
were in receipt of a rent relief grant, that is why no information was
disclosed.
 
I hope this information clarifies the situation for you.
 
regards
 
Berni
 
 
Berni Whitaker
Enterprise Manager
Office of the Chief Executive
Sunderland City Council
0191 305 1205
[1]www.sunderland.gov.uk
 
 

show quoted sections

References

Visible links
1. http://www.sunderland.gov.uk/

Dear Berni Whitaker,

Thank you for your very prompt reply.

To clarify I would be grateful if you could address the following queries that have already been raised as part of this request and remain unanswered by your response. Clarification and responses to these queries would then close this request.

1) On the 23rd December 2010 (http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ra...) I requested an internal review following your first refusal and left a note and link regarding the press release at http://www.raintonbridge.com/news/leight... which states that "Leighton Group, the parent company of six subsidiary IT and design companies, is moving its entire operation into 8,866 sq ft at the Chase Building, Rainton Bridge Business Park on a five year lease at the end of the month." and "Councillor Paul Watson Leader of Sunderland City Council said: "The Council is very proud of this Sunderland company with whom we’ve had a strong relationship for many years and we are delighted to be able to assist them develop their business further as they move into new premises at Rainton Bridge.". I would be grateful if you could confirm what exactly the support (if not rate reduction or rent relief grant) was that Councillor Paul Watson Leader of Sunderland City Council provided.

2) On the 11th April 2012 (http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ra...) I requested an internal review following your second refusal and left a note and link repeating the aforementioned press release regarding the Leighton Group and including links to 2 other press releases (http://www.nebusiness.co.uk/business-new... & http://www.sunderlandsoftwarecity.co.uk/...) regarding a business called Aframe where they state "The support from Sunderland City Council’s business investment team encouraged the company to open a base on Wearside.". In the 2 press releases Aframe state that they have attracted invested as well as being awarded a grant from NESTA, The Arts Council and the Arts and Humanities Research Council. Aframe is not included as a tenant in your spreadsheet. In this internal review I also thanked you for providing a list of the current 28 tenants at the e-volve business centre but highlighted that the following appear to have been ommitted: Leighton Ltd, The Communicator Corporation Ltd, WorkCast Ltd, SaleCycle Ltd and Business Education Publishers Ltd. I note that Communicator Corp now appears in the spreadsheet provided on 14th February 2013 but Leighton Ltd, WorkCast Ltd, SaleCycle Ltd and Business Education Publishers Ltd do not appear to. I would be grateful if you could review your spreadsheet to confirm if Aframe, and other companies as previously mentioned in this request are tenants and should have been included in the provided spreadsheet. 

3) I would also be grateful if you could confirm the standard amount (£) per sq foot for the e-volve business centre and confirm that no businesses are paying Sunderland City Council less than the amount of space that they are occupying, if they are then I would be grateful if you could treat this as a "rate reduction" and update the spreadsheet accordingly.

4) Finally, I would be grateful if you could confirm that a fair and consistent service charge element has been charged to all tenants (eg each tenant pays the same rate for floor space, additional services used etc.) but if this is not the case (eg a tenant was offered a reduced service charge relating to standard rates relating to space occupied and people employed) then I would be grateful if you could treat this as a "rate reduction" and update the spreadsheet accordingly with relevant details.

Please note that the original request on the 23rd November 2010 was for the e-volve centre and all businesses at the Rainton Bridge Business Park. I would be grateful if you could clarify that information you have provided relates to the Rainton Bridge Business Park and not just the e-volve centre at the Rainton Bridge Business Park.

A list of tenants, sq ft occupied, standard service charge and actual service charge paid by each tenant would satisfactorily answer and close this request.

Yours sincerely,

James Burke

Dear Berni Whitaker,

I would be grateful if you could let me know if Sunderland City Council will be providing a reply to http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ra... sent on the 15th February 2013.

Should I not hear from you by the close of 1st March 2013 then I will assume that you will not be complying with the ICO decision notice and I will inform them accordingly of this failure.

As a reminder, the ICO issued a decision notice on the 10th January November 2013 FS50448552 stating:

2. The Commissioner's decision is that the council has incorrectly applied section 41 and section 43 to withhold the requested information.

3. The Commissioner requires the council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
- Disclose the requested information to the complainant

4. The council must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of the decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to Section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court.

Yours sincerely,

James Burke

Berni Whitaker, Sunderland City Council

Dear Mr Burke,

I can confirm that I will be sending you a full reply to the your request of the 15th February 2013, however this cannot be provided by the 1st March 2013. As I am aware we have provided a response as per the ICO ruling. Your request of the 15th February was asking for information, which although related to your request date 23 November 2010 was in addition to your original request, and therefore will take some time to collate. I am hoping to provide a response early week commencing the 4 March 2013. I have copied in one of our FOI officers so that he is aware of when the response will be supplied.

Kind regards

Berni

show quoted sections

Dear Berni Whitaker,

I would be grateful for a full reply by the close of business Monday 11th March.

Yours sincerely,

James Burke

Berni Whitaker, Sunderland City Council

You reply has been drafted an is with my FOI colleagues for comment. I
will chase them to ensure that you get your response by COP today.

Regards

Berni

show quoted sections

Dear Berni Whitaker,

Thank you, it is much appreciated.

Yours sincerely,

James Burke

Berni Whitaker, Sunderland City Council

Mr Burke,

In answer to your queries - email dated 15 February 2013. Please accept my apologies for the delay in responding.

Your original request was dated the 23 November 2010 and stated 'Please can you provide a list of all tenants at the Evolve Centre and businesses at the Rainton Bridge Business Park where you have provided financial support and/or assistance since the opening'. The companies who were on the spreadsheet which accompanied my response to your request, were the companies in receipt of financial assistance, from the opening of Rainton Bridge Business Park/E-volve up until the 23 November 2010. Any payments after this date are not included, as part of your request.

With regard to the points raised in your request for an internal review dated 23 December 2010 and 11 April 2012, I will provide information as requested.

1) Request of 23 December 2012

Financial support that the Leighton Group (Communicator Corp) received up to the 23 November 2010 was included in the spreadsheet provided to you - this totalled £47,500 in respect of a relocation grant.

2) Request of 11 April 2012

Aframe, Leighton Limited, Workcast Limited, Sale Cycle Limited and Business Education Publishers Limited would not appear on the spreadsheet because the spreadsheet only contained information on companies that had received financial assistance from SCC, as per your request description stated 'Please can you provide a list of all tenants at the Evolve Centre and businesses at the Rainton Bridge Business Park where you have provided financial support and/or assistance since the opening' , as at the date of your request 23 November 2010.

3) Square Ft charges - The business rate for the E-volve Business Centre for the financial year 2010/11 was £200,262.50 the total sq footage of the building is 48,117 sq ft giving a rate value of £4.53 per sq ft.

4) Service Charges - The charge per tenant, in the E-volve business centre is £22.50 per sq ft of office space rented. The service charge is inclusive of rent, business rates (as detailed above) plus utilities and communal cleaning. The Centre Manager at E-volve has confirmed that every tenant pays the same inclusive service charge per sq ft of office space rented.

5) The spreadsheet does cover all businesses at Rainton Bridge Business Park who were in receipt of any financial assistance as per your request 'Please can you provide a list of all tenants at the Evolve Centre and businesses at the Rainton Bridge Business Park where you have provided financial support and/or assistance since the opening' as at the 23 November 2010.

It has been confirmed that subsidies on service charges are not offered and details of financial assistance requested as part of your original request have been provided. If you have additional questions about square feet occupied and a breakdown of service charges this would need to be handled as a new request.

Kind regards

Berni

show quoted sections

Dear Berni Whitaker,

Thank you for your reply.

For the avoidance of doubt I would be grateful if you could confirm the following in relation to the four points you have responded to (http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ra...).

These final queries should just require straightforward confirmation and not require any additional work or follow on requests. Confirmation of these queries will then satisfactorily close this request as originally asked 23 November 2010. I will not be asking any "additional questions about square feet occupied and a breakdown of service charges" as per the final paragraph of your reply.

1) Please confirm if correct or incorrect: Leighton Group, the parent company of six subsidiary IT and design companies, moved its entire operation into 8,866 sq ft at the Chase House, Rainton Bridge Business Park and received a relocation grant of £47,500 from Sunderland City Council and has received no other financial support from Sunderland City Council. An additional SFI grant of £70,000 to support this relocation was received from the regional development agency One North East. Leisure Travel & Tourism Ltd (not a Leighton Group company but sharing registered address and shareholder details as the Leighton Group) also received a £33,500 relocation grant from Sunderland City Council for relocating to Chase House, Rainton Bridge Business Park. Total relocation grant for the Leighton Group companies and connected company Leisure Travel & Tourism Ltd to move into the 8,866 sq ft at Chase House, Rainton Bridge Business Park was £151,000. For completeness, please provide the "rate value" for Chase House, Rainton Bridge Business Park as you have done so for other buildings at Rainton Bridge Business Park (eg £4,53 per sq ft for e-volve business centre).

2) Please confirm if correct or incorrect: Aframe has received no financial support or assistance from Sunderland City Council or Sunderland City Council’s business investment team.

3 & 4) Please confirm if correct or incorrect: Sunderland City Council has made a consistent service charge to all tenants at the e-volve centre and has never reduced this service charge to any business. Sunderland City Council has never made a reduction of any business rate to any business at Rainton Bridge. All businesses at Rainton Bridge Business Park have paid Sunderland City Council (including businesses mentioned in point 1 above) business rates in full and at non-discounted rates for space occupied. Business rates have been received in full for the 8,866 sq ft at Chase House, Rainton Bridge Business Park whilst occupied.

These final queries should just require straightforward confirmation and not require any additional work (other than a brief lookup and confirmation of the business "rate value" for Chase House, Rainton Bridge Business Park - if it is quicker and easier for you to provide copies of the Sunderland City Council business cases for relocation grants provided as referenced in point 1) then please provide them otherwise a "rate value" per sq ft for the 8,866ft occupied in relation to the £151,000 relocation grant will suffice).

Thank you again for your prompt reply.

Yours sincerely,

James Burke

Berni Whitaker, Sunderland City Council

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Burke,
 
please find concluding reponses to your queries.
 
kind regards
 
Berni

show quoted sections

Dear Berni Whitaker,

Thank you very much for the complete reply, it is much appreciated.

Yours sincerely,

James Burke