Dear Kingston upon Thames Borough Council,

Please can you send me all the documents in which the actions and outcomes of each and every meeting of each of the following Boards relating to the possible establishment of an Opportunity Area or of multiple Opportunity Areas in The Borough of Kingston are outlined and discussed since 24 March 2015 until today's date:
1. The Strategic Growth Board
2. The Officer Project Board
3. The Opportunity Area Project Team.

The formal creation of these Boards and Terms of Reference for each Board was approved at the meeting of Kingston's Infrastructure, Projects and Contracts Committee on 24 March 2015 .

The Terms of Reference for each of the above Boards as agreed at the Committee meeting of 24 March 2015 states that "the actions and outcomes" of that Board following each meeting of the Board will be "circulated to officers" and therefore such documents must - by definition - be readily available.

Yours faithfully,

Caroline Scott

Dear Kingston upon Thames Borough Council,

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

I am writing to request an internal review of Kingston upon Thames Borough Council's handling of my FOI request 'Request for information on actions and outcomes of Boards working on Kingston Opportunity Area'.

Firstly, you have omitted to send me the following information, which I now request:
Full minutes with outcomes and actions agreed of the meetings of the Opportunity Area Strategic Board that you indicate took place on 20 April 2015, 5 April 2016 and 21 September 2016.

Secondly, please clarify the nature, terms of reference and legal status of the "Opportunity Area Strategic Board " and the "Opportunity Area Planning Framework Officer" group, including when and by whom these bodies were constituted. These are not entities that have been approved by any committee of Kingston Council to negotiate or work with the GLA to discuss the possibility of Opportunity Area status for Kingston.

Thirdly, please send me the minutes, outcomes and actions agreed that I requested for the following boards, which were approved in the IPCC Committee on 24 /3/15: The Strategic Growth Board, the Officer Project Board and the Opportunity Area Project Team.

Fourthly, I note that the information you have sent me is identical to the information I have received from the GLA when I requested their internal minutes of meetings held with Kingston about the possible formation of an Opportunity Area in the Borough, together with agreed actions and outcomes. Please can you provide information that clarifies Kingston Council's policy and strategy for working with the GLA to develop growth plans for Kingston and that gives evidence of your independence in negotiations and discussions with the GLA and of the fact that the Council is working in the best interests of the residents and other stakeholders in the Borough.

Fifth, having reviewed the relevant parts of the Data Protection Act, including the part on data protection principles and on Minutes of Meetings, as well as the ICO's guidance on what is personal data, I assert that Kingston council does not have grounds on which to withhold data on the grounds that it is personal data under regulation 13(1) of the EIR and that the Council should therefore immediately release all data that you have withheld on this basis, including but not limited to the names of the Council representatives that have been withheld and of the counsel who provided professional advice to the Council. My assertion is based on the opinion that my request for information and the information withheld does not satisfy either of the conditions laid out in 13(2) or 13(3) of the EIR, which are necessary for condition 13(1) itself to be satisfied. I assert that each of the people whose name is mentioned in the said minutes must by necessity have been participating in discussions or giving advice and opinions solely in a professional capacity and that information that gives their name is not therefore personal data that is subject to exemption under the Data Protection Act. I also assert that the public interest in disclosing the names of people who - in their professional capacity - attended meetings or contributed to meetings on behalf of or as agents of the council to negotiate plans to pursue growth in Kingston on a scale and in a form that will make the town and Borough unrecognisable and of which residents were at the time unaware - far outweighs the public interest in withholding such information.

Sixth, I assert that you do not have the right under EIR 12 (4) to withhold any of the information that you have withheld on the basis that such information is "incomplete, unresolved or otherwise undecided". I assert that the exception fails the public interest test. Under Regulation 12(1)b, it is stated that "the public authority can only withhold the information if, in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in meeting the exception outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information." I assert that it is in the "greater good or benefit to the community" for any and all information on the Council's growth plans for the Borough to be made public, specifically given there is considerable doubt as to whether the council has a mandate for the growth being planned (Roy Thomson - Growth Committee discussion of Direction of Travel October 2016) given that the council only has authority from IPC Committee to pursue Opportunity Area status for Kingston Town (IPCC Committee 24/3/15), and given the complete secrecy with which discussions and plans are being formed with the GLA for growth in Kingston. In my opinion, the way in which growth policy is being developed and information withheld is undemocratic and harmful to public interest and there is no doubt that it is in the greater good and benefit of the community to know about the Council's plans. By withholding information, Kingston Council is purposefully limiting public awareness of its growth plans, restricting public participation in environmental decisions and working to stop people from creating a better environment - all of which are counter to Directive 2003/4/EC. Kingston Council seems happier to stand up for GLA secrecy than to support the constitutional and democratic rights of residents. Its argument on behalf of the GLA that the GLA should not have to "explain " or "justify" ideas and should be able to work "without intervention or interference from outside" further support my assertion that the GLA and Kingston Council are seeking to act in a way - without appropriate authority - to develop policy and plans that the community will have little or no ability to influence and which are by nature undemocratic. I assert also that the Council is not justified to withhold information on the basis that Regulation 12(2) of the EIR states that "a public authority shall apply a presumption in favour of disclosure" and the council has no justifiable reason not to presume in favour of such disclosure.

On this basis, I request that you release immediately all information you have currently withheld under EIR 1 (4).

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

Yours faithfully,

Caroline Scott

Dear FOI,

Please can you tell me when I will receive the results of your Internal Review of this FOI Act request. The 20 day deadline has already passed - the Internal Review was requested on 6 December 2016.

Yours sincerely,

Caroline Scott