Red Lion Site, Coulsdon

The request was refused by Croydon Borough Council.

Richard Thurbon

Dear Croydon Borough Council,

I hereby make the following FOI request.

I require the information on the discussions between Croydon Council Planning departments and councillers and Aldi refering to the derelict 'Red Lion' site in the centre of Coulsdon.

Please release any documents, minutes or transcripts pertaining to this site over the last 5 years.

Yours faithfully,

Richard Thurbon

Michael Douglas left an annotation ()

Thank you for posting this.
I was going to make a similar request.

Haynes-Ranger, Angela, Croydon Borough Council

Dear Mr Thurbon,

Thank you for your email dated 6 August 2010 in which you have requested
information on the discussions between Croydon

Council Planning departments and councillors and Aldi referring to the
derelict 'Red Lion' site in the centre of Coulsdon.

We are considering your request under the terms of the Freedom of
Information Act 2000, and hope to respond within the statutory 20 working
days.

In some circumstances a fee may be payable and if that is the case, either
myself or a colleague will let you know the likely charges before
proceeding.

If you have any queries about this email, please contact me. Please
remember to quote the reference number above in any future communications.

Yours sincerely

Angela Haynes-Ranger

Legal Support Officer

London Borough of Croydon

Democratic & Legal Services

Chief Executive's Office

5th Floor,Taberner House

Park Lane, Croydon CR9 3JS

DX 136017 Croydon 17

Tel:020 8686 4433 ext 61402

Fax:020 8760 5679

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

What would make us a better council? Your voice counts:
www.croydon.gov.uk/proudtoserve

Young people are getting active this summer:
http://www.croydon.gov.uk/youthcouncil

Please use this web site address to view the Council's E-Mail disclaimer -
www.croydon.gov.uk/disclaimer/email.htm

Passman, Howard, Croydon Borough Council

Dear Thurbon,

Further to your email dated 6 August 2010, in which you have requested
information in respect of the Red Lion Site, Coulsdon. We have considered
your request under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and
are able to supply you with the following information.

Section 21 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 provides an exemption to
disclosure where the information requested is accessible by other means
and therefore you have not been provided with the requested information.

Information about applications regarding the Red Lion Site application
numbers 05/00603/P; 06/03132/P and 07/01729/P, is in public domain and can
be accessed via the Council's website:
[1]http://planning.croydon.gov.uk/DCWebPage...

You are also able to view planning application files by arranging an
appointment, should you wish to do this, please contact:

Sharon Mitchell

Planning Technical Support Team

Planning, Regeneration and Conservation Department

17 Floor NW

Taberner House

Park Lane

Croydon

CR9 1JT

E-mail: [2][email address]

If you are unhappy with the way the department has handled your request
under the Freedom of Information Act, you may ask for an internal review.
You can do this by outlining the details of your complaint and either:

o e-mailing us at [Croydon Borough Council request email]
o faxing us on 0208 760 5679
o writing to FOI Complaints, London Borough of Croydon, Democratic and
Legal Services, Croydon, CR9 3JS

If you are not content with the outcome of the internal review, you have
the right to apply directly to the Information Commissioner for a
decision. The Information Commissioner can be contacted at:

o Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane,
Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF

Yours sincerely,

Howard Passman

Information Management Manager

Democratic & Legal Services Division

Southside, 5th Floor Taberner House

Park Lane, Croydon CR9 3JS

020 8726 6000 ext. 62318

www.croydon.gov.uk

www.croydononline.org

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

Book a seat for the Clocktower's autumn programme:
http://www.croydonclocktower.org.uk

Young people are getting active this summer:
http://www.croydon.gov.uk/youthcouncil

Please use this web site address to view the Council's E-Mail disclaimer -
www.croydon.gov.uk/disclaimer/email.htm

References

Visible links
1. http://planning.croydon.gov.uk/DCWebPage...
2. mailto:[email address]

Dear Croydon Borough Council,

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

I am writing to request an internal review of Croydon Borough Council's handling of my FOI request 'Red Lion Site, Coulsdon'.

I requested that "I require the information on the discussions between Croydon
Council Planning departments and councillors and Aldi referring to
the derelict 'Red Lion' site in the centre of Coulsdon."

This related to the internal information avalible with Croydon Council regarding the site. I am fully aware of the planning applications, otherwise why would I be asking about the site?

Please could you review and provide the information requested?

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

Yours faithfully,

Richard Thurbon

Stockton, Jessica, Croydon Borough Council

Dear Sir,

I acknowledge receipt of your request for an internal review of FOI
675/2010 dated 7 September 2010. I have been asked to undertake the
internal review of this matter.

In your request for an internal review, you stated that your initial
request related to "internal information available with Croydon Council
regarding the site" and that you were fully aware of the planning
applications. In order that I properly understand your request, and to
enable me to consider whether your request was appropriately responded to
given the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act, I would be
grateful if you could clarify whether you are in fact seeking information
held on the Council's planning files (inspection of which was offered to
you) and any other information which may be held by the Council; or
whether you were indicating that you were aware of the nature of the
planning file contents and therefore did not require this information but
some other information which may be held by the Council elsewhere?

The information commissioner recommends that internal reviews are
undertaken within 20 working days following receipt of the request, in
other words, by 20 October 2010, subject to receipt of the clarification
requested above. Once I am clear as to the nature of your request I will
make enquiries of the relevant officers which will allow me to consider
your review request. I will revert to you once I have the information to
hand and have had an opportunity to consider it in relation to the
provisions of the Freedom of Information Act.

Yours sincerely

Jessica Stockton

Corporate Solicitor
Democratic & Legal Services Division
Chief Executive's Office
Southside, 5th Floor Taberner House
Park Lane, Croydon CR9 3JS

show quoted sections

Dear Stockton, Jessica,

Thank you for your letter.

I can confirm that I was indicating that I was aware of the nature of the
planning file contents and therefore did not require this information but
require information on letters, minutes or discussions on the site not accessible within the public domain.

Yours sincerely,

Richard Thurbon

Stockton, Jessica, Croydon Borough Council

Dear Sir,

I refer to your email dated 7 September 2010 requesting a review of the
Council's decision in respect of your initial request for information and
your further email of 13 September 2010 clarifying that request. I confirm
that I have been requested to undertake the internal review in relation to
this matter. I have considered your request and the response you received
in accordance with the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act 2000
(FOIA 2000).

Your initial request for information asked for "information on the
discussions between Croydon Council Planning departments and councillors
and Aldi" referring to the derelict 'Red Lion' site in the centre of
Coulsdon. You received a response from the Council advising that Section
21 of the Freedom of Information Act was applicable, in that all the
planning application information in relation to the matter was available
via the Council's planning portal (the link to which was included within
the body of the response) and in addition, you were invited to come and
inspect the planning files by contacting a named Council officer.
Following receipt of this response from the Council you requested a review
of the decision.

On receipt of your request for a review I asked for clarification about
your request and you indicated that you were aware of the contents of the
planning files and did not wish to see information which was in the public
domain. Accordingly, and in light of your clarification, I sought further
information from the Council officers regarding the site. I am able to
confirm that the Council's enforcement team holds an enforcement file
which pertains to the Red Lion Site. I am advised that the Council's
enforcement team are currently undertaking investigations regarding the
Red Lion Site pursuant to the Council's functions in respect of planning
enforcement for the purposes of ascertaining whether any person has failed
to comply with the law or whether the circumstances would justify
regulatory action by the Council. As such it is considered that the
exemption to disclosure provided by Section 31 (1)(g) read with section
31(2) (a) and (c) FOIA 2000, relating to law enforcement for specific
purposes, applies to the information contained within that enforcement
file.

Despite the fact that this exemption is, on the face of it, applicable,
the Council may not withhold the information unless disclosure of the
information would, or would be likely to prejudice the purposes or
activities referred to above.

There are two issues that need to be considered with prejudice-based
exemptions. Firstly, it is necessary to establish the nature of the
prejudice (or other stated harm) that might result from disclosure of the
information requested, and secondly, if prejudice (harm) is not certain or
probable, to determine the likelihood of it occurring.

The word `prejudice' is not defined in the Act, although in legal
language, prejudice is commonly understood to mean harm, and the
Information Commissioner regards them as meaning the same thing. A public
authority is expected to provide evidence to show that there is a causal
relationship between the potential disclosure and the prejudice. However,
it does not have to prove that prejudice would occur beyond any doubt. In
making this assessment, the ICO has adopted a three stage process, which I
will incorporate below:

1. Identify the prejudice in the exemption;

The Council is tasked with the statutory duty of ensuring compliance with
planning controls in place within its area of control. Disclosure of
information contained within the enforcement file whilst the Council is
still undertaking investigations would undermine the Council's ability to
reach measured judgements about whether regulatory action was warranted
and if so, what action was appropriate in the circumstances.

2. Consider the nature of the prejudice in question:

Councils are advised through government guidance and planning policy to
undertake a consultative and more negotiation based approach to
enforcement and to engage with parties before employing enforcement action
as a last resort. (Provided, obviously that there are, for example, no
health and safety issues). As such, the Council's ability to work with
residents and businesses to achieve compliance is important. If the
Council were required to disclose details regarding such discussions prior
to the conclusion of an investigation or determination as to whether
regulatory action ought to be undertaken, this would impede the frankness
with which parties would engage in the process and may even prevent them
from being willing to engage with the Council at all. Disclosure could
seriously hamper any future enforcement or regulatory action that the
Council may consider taking at a later date in relation to the site. In
addition, whilst the Council is still undertaking investigations into
whether specific action ought to be pursued, it would be detrimental to
the other parties subject to investigation to release such incomplete
information particularly as one possible outcome of the investigation is
that no regulatory or criminal action may eventually result.

3. Consider the likelihood of the prejudice in question occurring.

The prejudice envisaged above relates not only to hampering the Council's
ability to undertake regulatory action on the site in future, should
investigations indicate that this is warranted, but also to the potential
prejudice to third parties interests in the event that the investigation
concludes that no action ought to be undertaken. I consider that the
likelihood of prejudice occurring, if the information is released during
the course of an investigation, is good.

I therefore consider that disclosure of the information contained within
the enforcement file would be likely to prejudice the Council's ability to
exercise its functions and accordingly am satisfied that the prejudice
test is met in this instance such that the s.31exemption is applicable to
this request.

The Council is now required to consider whether the public interest in
maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the
information - the "public interest test". Accordingly, I set out below my
consideration of the public interest test as it pertains to your request,
I should point out that many of the considerations set out above in
relation to prejudice also have a bearing on public interest.

The request pertains to information which relates to an ongoing
investigation by the Council. As such the timing of the request is
relevant in considering whether the public interest favours disclosure.
Where an investigation is complete or the Council has reached a
determination on the appropriateness of the regulatory action and has
taken such action, I consider that there would be a stronger public
interest argument in favour of disclosure than when the Council is still
assessing the facts and possible options as part of the investigation. In
addition, disclosing information part way through an investigation could
have a prejudicial impact on parties subject to investigation particularly
if the investigation concludes that there is no basis for regulatory
action.

In light of the above, and at the current point in time, I consider that
the public interest does not favour disclosure of the information
contained within the enforcement file pertaining to the Red Lion site.

In so far as your request relates to non-enforcement planning files, I
consider that your request was responded to in accordance with the
requirements of the Act in that you were referred to the exemption in
Section 21 in that the information was available by other means, namely
via the Council's publication scheme. You were referred to information
contained within the Council's planning portal and specific planning
applications (with the relevant links) and were also invited to come and
inspect planning files by contacting a named officer.

Accordingly the Council will not be making the requested information
available to you.

If you are not content with the outcome of the internal review, you have
the right to apply directly to the Information Commissioner for a
decision. The Information Commissioner can be contacted at:

. Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane,
Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF

Yours Sincerely

Jessica Stockton

Jessica Stockton

Corporate Solicitor

Democratic & Legal Services Division

Chief Executive's Office

Southside, 5^th Floor Taberner House

Park Lane, Croydon CR9 3JS

Tel: 020 8760 5768 (Ext. 61484)

Fax:02087605679

Faxination No: 02086339641

show quoted sections

Michael Douglas left an annotation ()

(1) Why not ask why the council has not published on its website basic information about this case, where the council admits it has taken enforcement action?

http://www.croydon.gov.uk/planningandreg...

http://planning.croydon.gov.uk/ECWebPage...

Enforcement Application - Search Page

LBC Say; "These Enforcement Application Search Pages enable you to search for cases where formal enforcement action has been authorised by the London Borough of Croydon. The data that is displayed on these pages is updated daily."

Case no 10/00640/C is not listed, nor is any by search for 159 Brighton Road CR5 2NH - LBC STOP Notice issued on 5-8-10.

This is a document which is among those requested in this FOI, should be in the public domain, but is not.

--

(2) The fact that the council may feel unable to publish its entire enforcement file for this case - for reasons amongst those given, does not mean it cannot publish any of that file.

Why not ask for a copy of the STOP Notice, and what led up to this, for example any requests from the public or internal council officers or members?

Why not also ask whether the council has received any representations about this STOP Notice? - I am informed that emails have been sent objecting to the closure order.

--

(3) The council's reply implies that there are just two sets of documents relevant to the future of the Red Lion site:

The file of planning applications which are already publicly available, and

The council's enforcement file relating to the council's action regarding the temporary car park

This is of course FALSE.

It is known from public statements by the council that there is a Masterplan in preparation.

It is reported that detail of this plan may be exempt following another FOI.

The council has ignored this issue under its Internal Review.

However THIS FOI asked for details of all internal discussions and emails relating to the future of this site - which goes back a number of years, and should include the failure to list the old Red Lion PH prior to its demolition.

Even if the CONTENT of the internal discussions may be viewed as confidential, the FACT of such, including dates, subject and those present of circulated may be released.

This should also be followed up.

--

At this stage, the above issues should be raised as points of clarification, making clear that if they are not addressed properly, then a complaint to the ICO will follow.

This is a simple enough process, see:

http://www.ico.gov.uk/complaints/freedom...

You may like to note that LB Croydon is already being monitored by the ICO as a result of numerous past failures to comply satisfactorily with the FOI Act.

http://www.ico.gov.uk/what_we_cover/prom...

Alan Wright left an annotation ()

I am most concerned to see that the council reply states:

"the Council's enforcement team are currently undertaking investigations regarding the Red Lion Site pursuant to the Council's functions in respect of planning enforcement for the purposes of ascertaining whether any person has failed to comply with the law or whether the circumstances would justify regulatory action by the Council."

This must relate to the STOP Notice and the fact that the car park was used by the public to park during the period from 5-8-10 to 1-9-10, after which the STOP Notice had expired and was of no effect.

The council's reasons for the STOP Notice were absurd, and have been shown to be so.

The use of this site as a free car park has been an excellent feature of great value to the public over the past 2 months, and long may it continue.

The council here is acting wholly against the public interest, as the car park is the best thing to happen Coulsdon since the Bypass opened 4 years ago.

Please ask for the justification for the reasons given in the STOP Notice as below.

"6. Reasons for issuing the notice:
It is expedient that the activity which amounts to a breach of planning control is stopped immediately in the interests of highway safety and protection of local amenity i.e control of flood lighting, noise. Prompt action is required to stop further unauthorised development."

It is obvious to any sensible person that the car park has operated for over 2 months now without any genuine issue of highway safety, or any conceivable issue of noise.

Furthermore, the council is required to conduct a balancing exercise when assessing the public interest and local amenity, and in this case, any possible concerns are far outweighed by the obvious benefits to local amenity and the community from the existence of of this long-overdue car park facility.

It is clear the council and local councillors do not really care about Coulsdon and local people, just getting their own way and imposing their own misguided plans for the future of the town.

Of course, they are also motivated by worries they may lose income at their miserable Pay & Display meters and their over-priced and under-used Lion Green Road car park, which they have over-managed and mis-managed for so many years, to then real disbenefit of the local community.