Relocation to SkyPark

The request was partially successful.

Dear Ms Symington,

I would like to make a formal request under the Freedom of
Information Act 2000. I am also making this Request under the
Environmental Impact Regulations 2004 which require disclosure on
the part of Local Authorities.

This follows on from an earlier FOI request:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/d...

THE MOVE TO SKYPARK:
1) When was the choice to relocate to Skypak made?
2) Which officers and members put forward the proposal?
3) At what meetings were these proposals put forward? And who attended these meetings?
4) What were the reasons given for the move to SkyPark at these meetings?
5) What were the financial justifications given for the move to SkyPark at the time?
6) Before these proposals were both informally and formally made, were any interventions made by any other parties or partners – including Devon County Council, Exeter City Council, developer St Modwyn and Exeter Airport?
7) Whom did the District Council enter into correspondence with over its decision to move to SkyPark?

THE RECONSIDERATION AND ABANDONMENT OF THE MOVE TO SKYPARK:
8) When was the choice to relocate to Skypak reconsidered and then abandoned?
9) Which officers and members reconsidered the proposal?
10) At what meetings were these proposals reconsidered and then abandoned? And who attended these meetings?
11) What were the reasons given to abandon the move to SkyPark at these meetings?
12) What were the financial justifications given for the reconsideration and abandonment of the move to SkyPark at the time?
13) Before these proposals to reconsider and then abandon the move to Skypark were both informally and formally made, were any interventions made by any other parties or partners – including Devon County Council, Exeter City Council, developer St Modwyn and Exeter Airport?
14) Whom did the District Council enter into correspondence with over its decision to reconsider and then abandon its move to SkyPark?

EU DIRECTIVES:
15) Did the plans to move to SkyPark contravene or breach any European Union directives or policies? If so, which directives or policies were contravened or breached? And how specifically did the proposed move to SkyPark contravene or breach any European Union directives or policies?
16) If this were the case, when did this come to light?
17) Which officers and members recognised that EU directives might have been contravened? And which officers and members acted on this information?
18) At what meetings was this information considered? And who attended these meetings?
19) Whom did the District Council enter into correspondence with over the information about these EU directives or policies?

COST:
20) How much was spent on the project to move to and then abandon the move to SkyPark?
21) Were any fees paid to consultants, agents, developers or other parties during the process of proposing then abandoning the move to SkyPark? If so, which parties were paid? And what were the sums paid?

I look forward to hearing from you.
Yours sincerely,
Jeremy Woodward

East Devon District Council

Thank you for submitting a request for information. We will respond to your request as quickly as possible, within the 20 working day statutory deadline under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

For updates on this case, please quote your unique reference number 101000394741 .

---------------------------------------
Customer Service Centre
East Devon District Council
Web: www.eastdevon.gov.uk

Follow us on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/eastdevon
Follow us on Twitter: http://twitter.com/eastdevon
Subscribe to our connectED enewsletter: http://eepurl.com/oKwgf

-
http://eastdevon.gov.uk/help/email-discl...
-

Kate Symington, East Devon District Council

Mr Woodward

 

Thank you for your request for information. Please find below answers to
your questions together with links to relevant information.

 

1) When was the choice to relocate to Skypark made?

Following a request from Members to invite agents to come forward with
possible land for development, a few additional sites came forward,
including Skypark. The project executive group scored each of the proposed
sites and 5 were identified as possibilities:

Cranbrook

Skypark

Clyst House

Heathpark X2

 

Information about this process is available here

[1]http://eastdevon.gov.uk/media/1228678/23...

[2]http://eastdevon.gov.uk/media/1228669/20...

 

2) Which officers and members put forward the proposal?

The site was put forward by the land agent and was considered by Members
and officers as detailed above.

 

3) At what meetings were these proposals put forward? And who attended
these meetings?

See links and explanation above.

 

4) What were the reasons given for the move to SkyPark at these meetings?

The skypark site was being considered along with four other sites. From
the scoring exercise, Skypark and Clyst House received the highest scores
and the pros and cons of these sites were presented to Cabinet

[3]http://eastdevon.gov.uk/media/1228660/17...

[4]http://eastdevon.gov.uk/media/1228639/10...

[5]http://eastdevon.gov.uk/media/1228651/14...

[6]http://eastdevon.gov.uk/media/1228648/13...

 

5) What were the financial justifications given for the move to SkyPark at
the time?

The pros and cons of this, and the Clyst House site are referred to above.

 

6) Before these proposals were both informally and formally made, were any
interventions made by any other parties or partners – including Devon
County Council, Exeter City Council, developer St Modwen and Exeter
Airport?

It is unclear what is meant by ‘interventions’.  EDDC conducted a site
search  and communicated with relevant parties in relation to sites that
arose in the process.  The process undergone in site searches and
selection was a formal one whereby information was gathered regarding the
sites in question.  This included engagement with relevant landowners and
developers and prospective partners to inform the process.  This included
St Modwen and Devon County Council as they are joint venture partners for
Skypark.

 

7) Who did the District Council enter into correspondence with over its
decision to move to SkyPark?

Cabinet gave delegated authority to the Deputy Chief Executive to
commission specialist expertise to advise on the detail of appropriate
procurement, value for money and legal matters in relation to Skypark. EU
procurement is a difficult area of law and it was necessary to ensure that
any deal in relation to Skypark was compliant with the regulations. St
Modwen and Devon County had indicated to the council that they were
unwilling to sell the bare site with the Council subsequently procuring
the build, which is why this became an issue.

[7]http://eastdevon.gov.uk/media/1255873/2-...

[8]http://eastdevon.gov.uk/media/1255882/5-...

[9]http://eastdevon.gov.uk/media/1255897/10...

[10]http://eastdevon.gov.uk/media/1255900/11...

 

THE RECONSIDERATION AND ABANDONMENT OF THE MOVE TO SKYPARK:

8) When was the choice to relocate to Skypark reconsidered and then
abandoned?

It became clear that purchasing the bare site did not meet the landowner’s
expectations. However their proposal involved a difficulty of securing
compliance with EU procurement rules    this the Council was looking
further into to determine whether the issue could be overcome and what
the way forward might be.  The issue was not resolved but rather
superseded because a reduced offer had been submitted for the council's
land at Heathpark, thereby making Skypark no longer a viable option.

[11]http://eastdevon.gov.uk/media/1255903/12...

[12]http://eastdevon.gov.uk/media/1255906/13...

 

9) Which officers and members reconsidered the proposal?

The proposal was considered by the officer working group, project
executive group and Cabinet

[13]http://eastdevon.gov.uk/media/1255903/12...

[14]http://eastdevon.gov.uk/media/1255906/13...

[15]http://eastdevon.gov.uk/media/1255915/16...

[16]http://eastdevon.gov.uk/media/1255942/25...

 

10) At what meetings were these proposals reconsidered and then abandoned?
And who attended these meetings?

The links above refer and also:

[17]http://eastdevon.gov.uk/media/1255933/22...

[18]http://eastdevon.gov.uk/media/1255942/25...

[19]http://eastdevon.gov.uk/media/1255945/26...

 

11) What were the reasons given to abandon the move to SkyPark at these
meetings?

See links above. The site was considered no longer viable due to the
reduced offer received for land at Heathpark

 

12) What were the financial justifications given for the reconsideration
and abandonment of the move to SkyPark at the time?

See links above

 

13) Before these proposals to reconsider and then abandon the move to
Skypark were both informally and formally made, were any interventions
made by any other parties or partners – including Devon County Council,
Exeter City Council, developer St Modwen and Exeter Airport?

There were no interventions but as one would expect there had been
discussions with DCC and St Modwen (as site owner) in terms of trying to
negotiate a deal. There is no further detail held on these discussions.

 

14) Who did the District Council enter into correspondence with over its
decision to reconsider and then abandon its move to SkyPark?

Links above refer. The decision was made by Cabinet.

 

EU DIRECTIVES:

15) Did the plans to move to SkyPark contravene or breach any European
Union directives or policies? If so, which directives or policies were
contravened or breached? And how specifically did the proposed move to
SkyPark contravene or breach any European Union directives or policies?

This was not a question of whether there was a contravention or breach of
any EU procurement law, but rather whether terms could be agreed between
the parties that would satisfy EU procurement requirements.

[20]http://eastdevon.gov.uk/media/1255900/11...

 

16) If this were the case, when did this come to light?

As indicated above this was an evolving issue, but essentially as detailed
negotiations began with St Modwen (following the Council’s decision of
26^th February 2014) it became clear that the Council was not going to be
able to just buy the bare site and procure its own build but rather
alternative approaches were being looked at, as such the issue of EU
procurement compliance arose. It had been raised as an issue prior to July
2014 but there is no information as to an exact date.

[21]http://eastdevon.gov.uk/media/1255900/11...

 

17) Which officers and members recognised that EU directives might have
been contravened? And which officers and members acted on this
information?

As has been said, this was not about whether EU procurement rules had been
contravened, rather whether any transaction would be compliant. It was
initially picked up by the in-house lawyers and then delegated authority
was given to the Deputy Chief Executive to commission specialist expertise
to advise on the detail of appropriate procurement, value for money and
legal matters relating to Skypark.

[22]http://eastdevon.gov.uk/media/1255873/2-...

 

18) At what meetings was this information considered? And who attended
these meetings?

Links above refer. The matter was discussed at the officer working group,
project executive group and Cabinet

 

19) Who did the District Council enter into correspondence with over the
information about these EU directives or policies?

Legal advice was sought from Eversheds. In the round there was discussions
with them and between St Modwen and their lawyers and DCC.

 

COST:

20) How much was spent on the project to move to and then abandon the move
to SkyPark?

Internal costs are not monitored. Fees were incurred in respect of agents
and specialist advice.

 

21) Were any fees paid to consultants, agents, developers or other parties
during the process of proposing then abandoning the move to SkyPark? If
so, which parties were paid? And what were the sums paid?

Legal advice costs in the sum of £11,380

 

I hope this information is helpful.

 

If you feel dissatisfied with the way we have responded to your request,
please contact our Monitoring Officer to request an internal review at
[23][email address]

 

You may also approach the Information Commissioner for advice at
[24]www.ico.gov.uk

 

Regards

 

Mrs Kate Symington

Information and Complaints Officer

East Devon District Council

 

01395 517417

[25]www.eastdevon.gov.uk

 

 

 

Follow us on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/eastdevon
Follow us on Twitter: http://twitter.com/eastdevon
Subscribe to our connectED enewsletter: http://eepurl.com/oKwgf

-
http://eastdevon.gov.uk/help/email-discl...
-

References

Visible links
1. http://eastdevon.gov.uk/media/1228678/23...
2. http://eastdevon.gov.uk/media/1228669/20...
3. http://eastdevon.gov.uk/media/1228660/17...
4. http://eastdevon.gov.uk/media/1228639/10...
5. http://eastdevon.gov.uk/media/1228651/14...
6. http://eastdevon.gov.uk/media/1228648/13...
7. http://eastdevon.gov.uk/media/1255873/2-...
8. http://eastdevon.gov.uk/media/1255882/5-...
9. http://eastdevon.gov.uk/media/1255897/10...
10. http://eastdevon.gov.uk/media/1255900/11...
11. http://eastdevon.gov.uk/media/1255903/12...
12. http://eastdevon.gov.uk/media/1255906/13...
13. http://eastdevon.gov.uk/media/1255903/12...
14. http://eastdevon.gov.uk/media/1255906/13...
15. http://eastdevon.gov.uk/media/1255915/16...
16. http://eastdevon.gov.uk/media/1255942/25...
17. http://eastdevon.gov.uk/media/1255933/22...
18. http://eastdevon.gov.uk/media/1255942/25...
19. http://eastdevon.gov.uk/media/1255945/26...
20. http://eastdevon.gov.uk/media/1255900/11...
21. http://eastdevon.gov.uk/media/1255900/11...
22. http://eastdevon.gov.uk/media/1255873/2-...
23. mailto:[email address]
24. http://www.ico.gov.uk/
25. http://www.eastdevon.gov.uk/

P Freeman left an annotation ()

Clearly EDDC have only provided details of indirect costs for the consideration of a move to Skypark.

Had EDDC gone ahead with the move to Heathpark / Exmouth in 2012/13, they would have avoided all the indirect costs also e.g. 2 years of Mr Pratten's time which is considerably more (perhaps 20x more) than the £11,000 stated as the direct costs of this abortive move.

Dear Ms Symington,

Thank you for your reply.

I fear there are still several outstanding questions:

7) You state that the 'Cabinet gave delegated authority to the Deputy Chief Executive to commission specialist expertise'. And yet this 'expertise' failed to 'advise' on the 'difficult area of law' that is EU procurement. You state that it was 'necessary to ensure that any deal in relation to Skypark was compliant with the regulations'. And yet in the documents you provide links for, there is no mention at all of EU procurement regulations.
Which body or person provided the 'expertise' on these matters; and why did the 'expertise' fail to 'advise' on these matters which were later to prove to be an 'issue'?

8) I find the explanation here somewhat convoluted and would like further clarification.
What exactly do you mean by 'their proposal involved a difficulty of securing compliance with EU procurement rules'?
How was the Council 'looking further into to determine whether the issue could be overcome and what the way forward might be'?
And how was the issue 'not resolved'? Surely this is a matter of legal requirement - that is, to 'secure compliance with EU procurement rules'?

13) You state that 'there had been discussions with DCC and St Modwen (as site owner) in terms of trying to
negotiate a deal.' And that this is what one would 'expect'. In which case, I find it difficult to understand that for any such 'expected discussions' that ' there is no further detail held on these discussions.'
There will have been meetings and such meetings will have been recorded or even minuted: could you please provide me with this documentation.

15) With regard to EU procurement law, you state that it was a question of 'whether terms could be agreed between the parties that would satisfy EU procurement requirements'. And yet in the document for which you provide a link, it is stated that the Council were 'all awaiting outcomes from TVG/RoW and EU Procurement before any further staff meetings etc are held'.
Could you provide me with those 'outcomes' please.

16) You state that 'the issue of EU procurement compliance ... had been raised as an issue prior to July 2014 but there is no information as to an exact date'.
I would say that this information is central to my Request as I would like to know when exactly it came to light, by 'expertise' or otherwise, that EU procurement compliance was 'raised as an issue'.
There must be a record of the meeting at which this first arose. I would like you to provide me with this information.

17) You state that the issue as to 'whether any transaction would be compliant' with EU procurement rules 'was initially picked up by the in-house lawyers and then delegated authority was given to the Deputy Chief Executive to commission specialist expertise to advise on the detail of appropriate procurement, value for money and legal matters relating to Skypark'. However, in the document for which you provide a link, there is no mention of this process.
I would like you to provide me with the documentation which refers specifically to this process.

19) Could you please provide me with the documentation from the 'legal advice' which 'was sought from Eversheds' and the correspondence 'between St Modwen and their lawyers and DCC'.

20) You state that 'internal costs are not monitored' and yet you state that 'fees were incurred in respect of agents and specialist advice' - who would have been 'external'. Could you therefore provide me with the figures for costs incurred with regard to 'agents and specialist advice'.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely,

Jeremy Woodward

Kate Symington, East Devon District Council

Mr Woodward

Thank you for your email.

In response to your request, we have provided you with links to relevant information and have also, where appropriate, provided you with commentary to aid your understanding of the documents provided. Under the Freedom of Information Act (and Environmental Information Regulations) the council is under no obligation to provide you with opinion or detailed explanation of information held and we will not be answering the additional questions you pose, save for those below:

19) To the extent that information is held in the form of written advice from Eversheds, it is subject to legal privilege and is withheld under s42 of the Freedom of Information Act. We have confirmed that there is no information held on discussions with landowners.

20) The specialist advice was the legal advice from Eversheds (costs provided). There are no agents fees specific to this work.

I confirm to you that all information held in respect of your request has been provided but if you feel that this is not the case, you are entitled to ask for an internal review.

Regards

Kate

Mrs Kate Symington
Information and Complaints Officer
East Devon District Council

01395 517417
www.eastdevon.gov.uk

show quoted sections

Dear Ms Symington,

Thank you for your response.

I would beg to differ that my questions are about 'opinion', and whilst "under the Freedom of Information Act (and Environmental Information Regulations) the council is under no obligation to provide [me] with opinion," the Council is in fact obliged by the FOI Act and the EIR to provide me with "detailed explanation of information held", as that is precisely what the Act and Regulation are about. You cannot simply state that you "will not be answering" my requests for clarification of your own responses.

I have found, yet again I must say, the responses to my requests for information wholly inadequate and as such I am entitled under the FOI Act and the EIR to ask that you provide adequate responses. These have not been forthcoming: hence, my insistence that you address the still-outstanding questions.

To reiterate my questions for information (stripped of my own 'opinions' on the context to these questions)

7) Which body or person provided the 'expertise' on these matters; and why did the 'expertise' fail to 'advise' on these matters which were later to prove to be an 'issue'?

8) What exactly do you mean by 'their proposal involved a difficulty of securing compliance with EU procurement rules'?
How was the Council 'looking further into to determine whether the issue could be overcome and what the way forward might be'?
And how was the issue 'not resolved'? Surely this is a matter of legal requirement - that is, to 'secure compliance with EU procurement rules'?

13) There will have been meetings and such meetings will have been recorded or even minuted: could you please provide me with this documentation.

15) Could you provide me with those 'outcomes' please.

16) There must be a record of the meeting at which this first arose. I would like you to provide me with this information.

17) I would like you to provide me with the documentation which refers specifically to this process.

You have suggested that in order to find satisfaction I must ask for the next step to be taken: I therefore ask for this to be taken to internal review.

Thank you.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely,

Jeremy Woodward

Kate Symington, East Devon District Council

This is an automated reply.

 

Please note that I will not be able to respond to your message until
Tuesday 27th October 2015.

 

If you wish to make a complaint or submit a request for information under
the Freedom of Information Act, please refer to our website at
[1]www.eastdevon.gov.uk or phone 01395 516551 during office hours.

 

 

 

Follow us on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/eastdevon
Follow us on Twitter: http://twitter.com/eastdevon
Subscribe to our connectED enewsletter: http://eepurl.com/oKwgf

-
http://eastdevon.gov.uk/help/email-discl...
-

References

Visible links
1. file:///tmp/www.eastdevon.gov.uk

Dear East Devon District Council,

It is now 20 working days since I asked for an Internal Review.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours faithfully,

Jeremy Woodward

Henry Gordon Lennox, East Devon District Council

Mr Woodward,

 

I am sorry for the delay in responding to your request for an internal
review. Please find our response below.

 

I will take each of your original questions in turn and specify whether or
not information is held; whether it has been provided; and if not, why it
has been withheld.

 

1.       When was the choice made to re-locate to Skypark?

Information is held in the form of minutes of the meetings of our officer
working group and project executive group and these were provided in our
original response. We have also summarised the reasons for the decision
and the other sites which were identified at the time.

 

2.       Which officers and Members put forward the proposal?

This detail has been provided in summary form and the information referred
to at (1) also referred to as being relevant

 

3.       At what meetings were these proposals put forward and who
attended these meetings?

The information provided at (1) above is relevant and provides requested
detail here.

 

4.       What were the reasons given for the move to SkyPark at these
meetings?

This information is held in reports to Cabinet, links to which have been
provided.

 

5.       What were the financial justifications given for the move to
SkyPark at the time?

This is referred to in the information provided at (4) above.

 

6.       Before these proposals were both informally and formally made,
were any interventions made by any other parties or partners – including
Devon County Council, Exeter City Council, Developer St Modwen and Exeter
Airport?

We sought clarification from you here as to what you mean by
“interventions.”

 

7.       Who did the Council enter into correspondence with over its
decision to move to SkyPark?

Here we outlined Cabinet’s decision in terms of delegated authority and
provided links to relevant detail in the form of cabinet reports and
meeting minutes.

 

8.       When was the choice to relocate to SkyPark reconsidered and then
abandoned?

Minutes of the officer working group and project executive group have been
provided outlining the decision making process and timings.

 

9.       Which officers considered the proposal?

You have been advised that the proposal was considered by the officer
working group and relevant minutes provided.

 

10.   At what meetings were these proposals reconsidered and then
abandoned and who attended these meetings?

Here you were referred to other information provided in answer to earlier
questions and also with further relevant meeting minutes.

 

11.   What were the reasons given to abandon the move to SkyPark at these
meetings?

We referred you here to the decision making process which is documented in
minutes/reports referred to in previous questions.

 

12.   What were the financial justifications given for the reconsideration
and abandonment of the move to SkyPark at the time?

We referred you here to the decision making process which is documented in
minutes/reports referred to in previous questions.

 

13.   Before these proposals to reconsider and then abandon the move to
SkyPark were both informally and formally made, were any interventions
made by any other parties or partners – including Devon County Council,
Exeter City Council, developer St Modwen and Exeter Airport?

You were told that discussions about this matter would have happened
between Devon County Council and St Modwen but that no information is held
by EDDC in respect of those discussions.

 

14.   Who did the District Council enter into correspondence with over its
decision to reconsider and then abandon its move to SkyPark?

You were reminded here that the decision was made by Cabinet and referred
to relevant links

 

15.   Did the plans to move to SkyPark contravene or breach any European
Union directives or policies? If so, which directives or policies were
contravened or breached?

Clarification on the point made is provided here and also a link to
relevant minutes from the project executive group

 

16.   If this is the case, when did this come to light?

As (15) above – relevant information is provided in the form of meeting
minutes.

 

17.   Which officers and members recognised that EU directives might have
been contravened?

We clarified the point here and again provided a link to meeting minutes
which are relevant.

 

18.   At what meetings was this information considered?

This information is the same as that referred to in (17) and (18)

 

19.   Who did the district council enter into correspondence with over the
information about these EU directives or policies?

We have given information here outlining which legal firm we sought advice
from

 

20.   How much was spent on the project to move to and then abandon the
move to SkyPark?

We have outlined that we do not quantify officer time in this way and so
the only information held in relation to this question relates to agents
fees for specialist advice

 

21.   Were any fees paid to consultants, agents, developers or other
parties during the process of proposing then abandoning the move to
SkyPark

We have provided you with the sum paid for legal advice costs.

 

You emailed us on 23^rd September to say that you did not feel that all
questions had been answered. You referred specifically to questions 7, 8,
13, 15, 16, 17, 19 and 20

 

Our response on 7^th October confirmed to you that all relevant
information had been provided. We clarified that at point 19, any
information held in the form of written legal advice provided to the
council is still considered to be subject to legal privilege and that it
is withheld under s42 of the Freedom of Information Act. We further
outlined that, apart from the fees information already provided, no
further agent costs were incurred specific to this request.

 

I think you may have misunderstood Mrs Symington’s email to you regarding
opinion and explanation. She was not referring to your own opinion (which
I note you subsequently removed from your email) but was pointing out to
you that the council’s obligation under FOI (EIR) is to provide requestors
with recorded information. We are not obliged to provide detailed
explanation about this information other than to provide clarification to
aid understanding where this is necessary.

 

In your email of 24^th October, for example, you ask why “the expertise
failed to advise on these matters”. This is not a request for information
but a question asking for our opinion on this matter. We have provided you
with information held in respect of the advice we received in terms of
meeting reports and minutes and explained that decision making was
delegated and I confirm that no further detail is held.

 

You go on to ask what we mean by a comment we made in respect of your
question 8. Again, we have answered the query and provided relevant
information which was held at the time of your request. Nothing further is
held in this respect.

 

In respect of your question 13, we have told you that we do not hold
information on meetings held between DCC and St Modwen and I confirm that
this detail is not held, nor is any further information held by the
District Council in respect of any such meeting.

 

I am not sure what outcomes you are referring to here. Your question 15
was answered by the provision of relevant meeting minutes and no further
information is held.

 

Again with your question 16, we have provided relevant meeting minutes and
no further information is held. It is possible that the matter may have
been discussed in conversations between officers or with external
organisations but these conversations would not be recorded or minuted.

 

Finally, in respect of your question 17 – we have provided copies of
minutes outlining where and when the matter was discussed and I confirm
that no further detail is held.

 

To conclude my review, I will again reiterate to you that all information
relevant to the questions you have raised, has been provided. Nothing
further is held. The only information which has not been provided is in
the form of legal advice provided to the council and this has been
exempted under s42 of the Freedom of Information Act. In the event that it
should be decided that this request falls within the scope of the
Environmental Information Regulations then this information would fall to
be exempt under Regulation 12(5)(b).

 

I hope this is helpful and apologies once again for the delay in
responding to this internal review. We believed that the matter had been
resolved in our email to you of 7^th October which outlined that all
relevant information had been provided and which reminded you of the
council’s obligations under the Freedom of Information Act.

 

Should you remain dissatisfied with our response to your request, you have
the right to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner
[1]www.ico.gov.uk.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

HENRY GORDON LENNOX

 

Strategic Lead - Legal, Licensing and Democratic Services

East Devon District Council

Tel: 01395 517401

Ext: 2601

Email: [email address]

 

References

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

Dear Mr Gordon Lennox,

Thank you for your response.

Yours sincerely,

Jeremy Woodward

Henry Gordon Lennox, East Devon District Council

I am away from the Council until Monday 11th April. Your email may not be
read until I return. If the matter is urgent and cannot wait please
contact Wendy Harris on 01395 517408 who will assist you further.

 

 

Follow us on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/eastdevon
Follow us on Twitter: http://twitter.com/eastdevon
Subscribe to our connectED enewsletter: http://eepurl.com/oKwgf

-
http://eastdevon.gov.uk/help/email-discl...
-