Dear Greater Manchester Combined Authority,

The supporting documentation for the Places for Everyone Joint Development Plan (PfE) included the following papers:

• 02.01.07 Integrated Assessment of the GMSF* - Growth and Spatial Options (2020)
• 02.01.09 Integrated Assessment of the PfE - Growth and Spatial Options and Reasonable Alernatives [sic] Addendum
(* GMSF = Greater Manchester Spatial Framework)

These documents included assessments in which each spatial option was graded ++, +, O, –, – – for short-term, mid-term and long-term impact against a set of objectives. For Ref #15 (“Promote a proactive reduction in direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions”), please provide the criteria, methodology and metrics for how the grades were assigned, for each of the five spatial options.

Please take account of the following in your reply:

1. I am aware that the scoping report includes a general methodology for how the Integrated Assessment was compiled, but I am specifically interested in the procedural mechanics of the grading system.
2. Any supporting documentation, including relevant correspondence, integral to assigning the grades should be clearly identified, and supplied if not published during the consultation.
3. You should provide enough detail such that a suitably qualified professional is able to corroborate your conclusions.

Please provide the information in a digital format, such as a PDF, Microsoft Word or open document format.

Yours faithfully,

Matthew Broadbent

Dear Greater Manchester Combined Authority,

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

Thank you for your reply to my information request (ref: #4117776) on 3rd March 2022. With regret, I consider your refusal to supply the information I requested to be unlawful, so I am requesting an internal review of Greater Manchester Combined Authority's handling of my FOI request 'The methodology for how the Integrated Assessment for the Places for Everyone plan graded the objective of reducing greenhouse gas emissions for the different spatial options'.

The Information Governance Team denied my request under Regulation 6(1)(b) on the grounds that the information I had requested was already available. You referred to several documents published as part of the Places for Everyone consultation that purportedly contain the information. I have checked these documents thoroughly and can confirm they do not.

In resolving this issue, I think it would be helpful to start from the position that I am best placed to determine if the information I seek is in the documents you have referred to me. While I concede that my original request may not have been specific enough for you to fulfill it, I would also remind you that the Freedom of Information Act places an obligation on you to advise and assist.

Your reply referred to the general methodology outlined in the scoping report (Integrated Assessment Scoping Report 02.01.01), despite the fact I had made it clear in my request I was already aware of this document, and it did not include the information I asked for. The scoping report lays out the baseline for the environmental objectives in Chapter 4.2 and provides a detailed breakdown of the carbon emissions in Chapter 4.2.3. In describing the assessment stage of the process, Chapter 2.2.2 states that the “alternative options are assessed so that their relative performance can be compared against the IA objectives.”

What you do not provide is documentation relating to the assessment process itself i.e. specific empirical data describing how the different spatial options impact the baseline for the carbon emissions. This is the information I am requesting. By way of comparison, this information was provided as a matter of course during the consultation for the Cambridge Local Plan: https://consultations.greatercambridgepl....

In your reply you state that the Integrated Assessment was undertaken by Arup. While I appreciate that the assessment is an iterative process, as part of that process Arup would have had to carry out some preliminary analysis into how the spatial options would impact the baseline for the carbon emissions, in order to draw to the conclusions it did do in the Integrated Assessment matrices. However, despite also asking for copies of relevant “supporting documentation” in my original request, I was not supplied with any of the analysis or reports by Arup.

I believe it is entirely reasonable and proper for a consultee in the plan development process to want to view the supporting evidence for the conclusions reached in the Integrated Assessment. I would be grateful if you would supply me with copies of all the reports and other documentation produced by Arup related to the Integrated Assessment for the GMSF/Places for Everyone that the Greater Manchester Combined Authority has in its possession, as I believe this would be consistent with the parameters of my original Freedom of Information request.

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

Yours faithfully,

Matthew Broadbent