Unidentified Influences on the decision making of planning officers in Haringey
Dear Haringey Borough Council,
On 13 December 2013, a Senior Planning Officer, acting on behalf of Haringey Council, provided an unambiguous written representation. The Council’s advice correctly represented legislation.
For over two years, the Council's advice had been substantially relied upon and acted on.
On 20 January 2016, Planning Enforcement Officer Russell Quick, also acting on behalf of Haringey Council, declared an arbitrary reversal of the Council's advice, violating the Council’s correct, lawful and long-standing stance in the matter.
On 15 February 2016, Officer Quick issued an Enforcement Notice, rescinding his assurance not to do so before the end of February 2016 (an assurance made in order to allow for preparation and submission of a planning application before an Enforcement Notice was issued).
On 18 February 2016, Officer Quick pointed to “other influences” as the reason for annulling his assurance - Referring to "other influences" as the reason for issuing the Enforcement Notice contrary to his assurance, enforcing the revocation of the Council’s lawful position.
In his email of the same day (12:51), Planning Enforcement Officer Quick wrote: “Unfortunately other influences meant that the Council could not wait until the end of the month to serve notice.”
REQUEST:
Please confirm who or what are the “other influences” cited in Russell Quick's email? Please provide correspondence and/or records that identify the “other influences” referred to by Officer Quick as the reason for repudiating his assurance not to issue an Enforcement Notice, and for the detrimental revocation of the council’s correct advice and lawful stance in the matter.
Yours faithfully,
Silver Bullet
Dear Madam/Sir,
Thank you for your email.
I am afraid that your request is not one that we can reply to in its
present form. For your request to be dealt with according to the Freedom
of Information Act, you must give your real name (ideally first name and
surname). Please note a request made by an applicant using a pseudonym is
not valid and the public authority would not be obliged to deal with the
request.
Please see the Information Commissioner’s website for further information
on the definition of a ‘real name’
:[1]https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisatio...
If you can reply to this email with your name and we will be able to
process your request.
Please can you also clarify to which Planning Application/ Enforcement
Notice you are referring.
Please note no further action will be taken until we hear back from you.
Once we receive the information we need we will acknowledge your request
and respond to it within the statutory timescale of 20 days.
Yours sincerely,
Feedback & Information Governance
Shared Service Centre | Central Team
Haringey Council
10th Floor, Alexandra House, 10 Station Road, Wood Green, London N22 7TR
facebook.com/haringeycouncil
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential, may be
subject to legal privilege and are intended only for the person(s) or
organisation(s) to whom this email is addressed. Any unauthorised use,
retention, distribution, copying or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If
you have received this email in error, please notify the system
administrator at Haringey Council immediately and delete this e-mail from
your system. Although this e-mail and any attachments are believed to be
free of any virus or other defect which might affect any computer or
system into which they are received and opened, it is the responsibility
of the recipient to ensure they are virus free and no responsibility is
accepted for any loss or damage from receipt or use thereof. All
communications sent to or from external third party organisations may be
subject to recording and/or monitoring in accordance with relevant
legislation.
References
Visible links
1. https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisatio...
Dear Haringey Borough Council,
Thank you for your response.
The "organisation " name was automatically noted in the request. I add my name below with apologies for any inconvenience the earlier omission may have caused.
Yours faithfully,
G. Levy (Mr)
Silver Bullet
Dear Haringey Borough Council,
Please find below requested details of the Enforcement Notice in question:
London borough of Haringey Reference: UNW/2015/00938
Planning Inspectorate Appeal Reference: APP/Y5420/C/16/3146620
I trust this enables you to process the request.
Yours faithfully,
G. Levy
Silver Bullet
Dear Haringey Borough Council,
The details you asked for yesterday were promptly provided:
Name and details of the enforcement notice issued by officer Russell Quick.
Please acknowledge the request and respond within the statutory timescale.
Thank you.
Dear Mr Levy
Freedom of Information / Environmental Information Regulations Request:
LBH/6970818
I acknowledge your request for information received on 11 January 2018.
This information request will be dealt with in accordance with the Freedom
of Information Act 2000 / Environmental Information Regulations and we
will send the response by 08 February 2018
Yours sincerely,
Feedback and Information Governance
Shared Service Centre | Central Team
Haringey Council
10th Floor, Alexandra House, 10 Station Road, Wood Green, London N22 7TR
facebook.com/haringeycouncil
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential, may be
subject to legal privilege and are intended only for the person(s) or
organisation(s) to whom this email is addressed. Any unauthorised use,
retention, distribution, copying or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If
you have received this email in error, please notify the system
administrator at Haringey Council immediately and delete this e-mail from
your system. Although this e-mail and any attachments are believed to be
free of any virus or other defect which might affect any computer or
system into which they are received and opened, it is the responsibility
of the recipient to ensure they are virus free and no responsibility is
accepted for any loss or damage from receipt or use thereof. All
communications sent to or from external third party organisations may be
subject to recording and/or monitoring in accordance with relevant
legislation.
Dear Mr Hermitage,
As Head of Development Management in Haringey, you may agree that local authority officials, however senior, should not flout planning law to the detriment of the public.
The Royal Town Planning Institute, of which you are a member, sets out a code of professional conduct, standards of practice and ethics. It does not condone cover ups of detrimental malfeasance.
Haringey Council have abused their position and enforcement powers against a lawful use of land, over a substantial period of time. As you are aware, unprecedentedly, three related costs orders were issued against the council, for unreasonable behaviour causing wasted expense.
However, the Planning Inspectorate’s remit is limited, and the Local Government Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to investigate planning related misconduct is constrained by Section 26(6) of the Local Government Act 1974. Few are willing and able to engage in protracted, expensive and consuming defence against abuse of significant conferred powers, by publicly funded officials and their legal representatives. The cost and time requisites of Judicial Review mean that proceeding against the council in the High Court is prohibitive for most people.
This legislative black hole can be conveniently relied upon by unscrupulous officials. The absence of adequate remedy allows the merry to go round, to the detriment of individuals, businesses, and the economy. It facilitates defiance of the presumption in favour of sustainable development, at the heart of the National Planning Policy Framework. This risks encouraging the making of planning decisions for private gain.
It is suggested that legitimate challenges to Haringey’s planning authority risk bruising egos and punitive recriminations. The same enforcement officer recently showed renewed interest in the positive and harmless development that dared to challenge systemic malpractice.
This simple request is for information that identifies the decision maker/s responsible for detrimental malpractice and an arbitrary stance, referred to by planning enforcement officer Quick as “other influences”.
In the interest of legal certainty, to maintain faith in the integrity of the planning system, and to help ensure that Haringey’s planning department befits a progressive local authority in 21 century London, please respond to this request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 without unreasonable and unnecessary delay.
Yours faithfully,
G. Levy | Silver Bullet
Dear Mr Levy,
Re: Freedom of Information Act Request ref: LBH/6971018
Thank you for your request for information received on 11 January 2018,
which was a follow-on request to your earlier correspondence (request ref:
LBH/6944918). Your questions and our responses are as set out below.
Your original requests, to which you are referring, appear in italics.
I note that you have sent another request, dated 8^th February 2018. This
will be registered separately. On the basis of the amount of requests and
correspondence that I see you have sent to the Council regarding Planning
matters perhaps a meeting with me would be helpful, and in the best
interests of public resources. Please let me know if this would be helpful
to you.
REQUEST POINTS 1 and 2:
Please provide the information requested.
1) Schedule of documents relating to departmental spending data, and
datasets for: a) the handling of planning applications. b) the planning
enforcement and appeals service.
Response: We do not have a schedule of documents such as you describe and
do not specify the level of spend as described. Our Budget is published
on our website.
2) What was the recorded number of officers employed and/or contracted by
the Council, at any one time during the period, to handle: a) planning
applications? b) planning enforcement & appeals?
Response: a) 18 b) 5
REQUEST POINT 3:
Please provide the disaggregation sought, unless this is as prohibitive as
suggested in the council’s response, specifically in relation to points 4,
5 and 6 below.
3) Of the 144 Enforcement Notices issued during the period, please
disclose how many are recorded to have resulted from: a) matters raised by
officers (distinct from concerns raised directly by public complaints). b)
anonymous complaints.
Response: From our consideration of your request, we have estimated that
it will cost more than the ‘appropriate limit’ to consider your request.
Section 12 of the Act allows public authorities to refuse requests for
information where the cost of dealing with them would exceed the
appropriate limit, which for local government is set at £450. This
represents the estimated cost of one person spending 18 hours in
determining whether the department holds the information, locating,
retrieving and extracting the information.
In this case the Council estimates that the work required to provide the
information – which would require a manual review of each 144 cases, and
which would take an estimated 10 minutes per case, would total 24 hours of
staff time, or £600. Thus, we have estimated that it will cost more than
the ‘appropriate limit’ to consider your request and consequently the
Council is not obliged by the Freedom of Information Act to respond to
your request. We will not therefore be processing your request further,
and this response is a part Fees Notice.
REQUEST POINTS 4, 5 and 6:
Thank you for clarifying related considerations. Please exclude points 4,
5 and 6 and process the remainder of the request, which does not require
detailed interrogation of notices.
Response: Your original requests at 4, 5 and 6 are disregarded.
REQUEST POINTS 7 and 8:
Please provide the information requested.
7) The overall monetary value of compensation resulting from officers’
unreasonable behaviour: a) paid during the period. b) budgeted and yet to
be paid, as at 31 March 2017?
Response: This information is not held; we do not pay compensation
arising from officer’s unreasonable behaviour.
8) To whom was the power delegated, to issue notices that were
subsequently appealed, if to anyone in addition to the Acting Team Leader
for Enforcement and Appeals?
Response: No one.
REQUEST POINT 9:
Thank you for confirming that Haringey council does not record its costs
in defending officers’ unreasonable behaviour. Please exclude this
element, in addition to points 4, 5 and 6.
Response: Your original request 9 has not been considered further.
REQUEST POINTS 10:
Since the council does not hold data concerning impacts of unreasonable
behaviour on applicants or the local economy, please also exclude these
elements of the request. However, please do include data (other than the
data requested in point 7) about the impact of such behaviour on the
council’s budget, for example, the cost of consequential delays to
developments and resulting loss of income from council tax and business
rates.
Response: This is not recorded.
REQUEST POINT 11:
Exempt records are not requested - The council’s website and publications
(for example, enforcement guide and enforcement charter) exclude policy
provisions for reducing unreasonable behaviour and associated costs.
Please provide the information requested, excluding individual employee
appraisals.
11) Records of any appraisal of proper governance of the planning and
enforcement functions, including officers’ compliance with legislation,
and adherence to planning policy, practice guidance and formal
representations. Please include records of any measures taken by the
Council to prevent or minimise unreasonable behaviour resulting in
unnecessary or wasted expense (for appellants and the council), and/or to
reduce the unnecessary imposition of damaging delays and financial burdens
on applicants, businesses and the local economy.
Response: We do not hold such information. There has been no
audit within the time period quoted.
REQUEST POINT 12:
The response suggests that (some of the) information can be found on the
council’s website: The request acknowledges this and includes a link to
the relevant web page. Access to an index or ability to trace notices, as
required by the Development Management Procedure (DMP) Order, remains
unavailable. Please provide access to the requested information.
12) Please provide the Index and Records of enforcement notices issued, or
make the same reasonably accessible. The Council’s Online Enforcement
Register linked to below, does not enable tracing entries by reference to
the land to which enforcement notices relate. It appears not to fulfil the
requirement of article 43 of the Development Management Procedure (DMP)
Order. Searches using variables including address details, reference
numbers and dates do not generate relevant results.
[1][1]http://www.planningservices.haringey.gov...
Response: We do not hold an index. The location of the site the
enforcement notice is identifiable on the website, as it is the ‘site
address’.
REQUEST POINT 13:
The response suggests that (some of the) information can be accessed on
the council’s website: As described in the request, the Online Enforcement
Complaints Register does not allow finding or viewing planning enforcement
complaints (as incorrectly stated elsewhere on the council’s website).
Please reconsider point 13 and provide access to the data on which
assessment of the performance of the planning enforcement team has been
based.
13) Information contained in the Council’s Online Enforcement Complaints
Register, including dates and address details, is incorrect and
incomplete. The AMR states that performance of the planning enforcement
team is improving and has improved significantly (including 95% of
“notifications of decisions within 8 weeks”). Please provide the
information or access to the information on which this assessment is
based, including details of Public Complaints received during the AMR
period.
[2][2]https://eforms.secure.haringey.gov.uk/uf...
Response: Please see attached spreadsheet (‘en cases closed’).
REQUEST POINTS 14 and 15:
Please process as requested.
14) Records of the Council’s procedures for monitoring and dealing with
conflicts of interest and/or undue influence (from within or outside the
Council) being brought to bear on officers’ impartial and free decision
making responsibilities.
Response: We do not hold such specific records. Our officers are bound by
the Council’s Constitution (attached).
15) Records of the council’s procedures for monitoring payments or the
provision of other benefits (other than from Haringey Council) made or
provided to planning officials while carrying out their planning and
enforcement duties.
Response: The Council’s document on this matter is attached.
If you are unhappy with how we have responded to your request you can ask
us to conduct an Internal Review. If so, please contact the Feedback and
Information Team as below. (Please note you should do this within two
months of receiving this response.)
Shared Service
Feedback and Information Governance Team
10th Floor, Alexandra House
10 Station Road
N22 7TR
E [3][email address]
If you are not content with the outcome of your complaint you may apply
directly to the Information Commissioner (ICO), although generally the ICO
cannot make a decision unless you have exhausted the complaints procedure
within Haringey Council. The contact details for the ICO are:
FOI/ EIR Complaints Resolution
Information Commissioner’s Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
T 01625 545 745
E [4][email address]
W [5]www.ico.org.uk
Yours sincerely,
Dean Hermitage | Head of Development Management
Planning, Regeneration and Development | Haringey Council
River Park House 225 High Road | London | N22 8HQ
Tel: 020 8489 4753 [mobile number]
[6]www.haringey.gov.uk
Please help to save paper by not printing this email unless absolutely
necessary.
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential, may be
subject to legal privilege and are intended only for the person(s) or
organisation(s) to whom this email is addressed. Any unauthorised use,
retention, distribution, copying or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If
you have received this email in error, please notify the system
administrator at Haringey Council immediately and delete this e-mail from
your system. Although this e-mail and any attachments are believed to be
free of any virus or other defect which might affect any computer or
system into which they are received and opened, it is the responsibility
of the recipient to ensure they are virus free and no responsibility is
accepted for any loss or damage from receipt or use thereof. All
communications sent to or from external third party organisations may be
subject to recording and/or monitoring in accordance with relevant
legislation.
References
Visible links
1. http://www.planningservices.haringey.gov...
2. https://eforms.secure.haringey.gov.uk/uf...
3. mailto:[email address]
4. mailto:[email address]
5. http://www.ico.org.uk/
6. http://www.haringey.gov.uk/
http://www.haringey.gov.uk/
Dear Mr Levy,
Re: Freedom of Information Act Request ref: LBH/6970818
Thank you for your request for information received on 11 January 2018, in
which you asked for the following information:
Please confirm who or what are the “other influences” cited in Russell
Quick's email? Please provide correspondence and/or records that identify
the “other influences” referred to by Officer Quick as the reason for
repudiating his assurance not to issue an Enforcement Notice, and for the
detrimental revocation of the council’s correct advice and lawful stance
in the matter. You also followed this up with an email of 8^th February
asking the same.
My response is as follows:
Having reviewed your request, I note the Council responded to an almost
identical request previously. We responded to your previous request,
under reference LBH/6101017 on 11 April 2017; for ease of reference the
response is attached. We therefore consider we have responded to this
request and will not consider it further.
I should also advise you that your correspondence on this and related
issues is becoming onerous. We have expended considerable officer time in
dealing with your correspondence about planning related matters, and have
responded to a Pre Action protocol letter in March 2017 and more recently
a Public Question posed at Cabinet on 16 January 2018 along with Freedom
of Information Requests. With this in mind it may be that the Council
considers that further requests of a similar nature may be considered to
be unreasonable under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act or
the Environmental Information regulations.
I am happy to discuss general issues with you as per my previous email.
If you are unhappy with how we have responded to your request you can ask
us to conduct an Internal Review. If so, please contact the Feedback and
Information Team as below. (Please note you should do this within two
months of receiving this response.)
Feedback and Information Team
10th Floor, Alexandra House
10 Station Road
London
N22 7TR
E [1][email address]
Yours sincerely,
Dean Hermitage | Head of Development Management
Planning, Regeneration and Development | Haringey Council
River Park House 225 High Road | London | N22 8HQ
Tel: 020 8489 4753 [mobile number]
[2]www.haringey.gov.uk
Please help to save paper by not printing this email unless absolutely
necessary.
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential, may be
subject to legal privilege and are intended only for the person(s) or
organisation(s) to whom this email is addressed. Any unauthorised use,
retention, distribution, copying or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If
you have received this email in error, please notify the system
administrator at Haringey Council immediately and delete this e-mail from
your system. Although this e-mail and any attachments are believed to be
free of any virus or other defect which might affect any computer or
system into which they are received and opened, it is the responsibility
of the recipient to ensure they are virus free and no responsibility is
accepted for any loss or damage from receipt or use thereof. All
communications sent to or from external third party organisations may be
subject to recording and/or monitoring in accordance with relevant
legislation.
References
Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
2. http://www.haringey.gov.uk/
http://www.haringey.gov.uk/
Dear Hermitage Dean,
Mistakes are inevitable in organisations - but wilful abuse of conferred powers, to knowingly cause harm, should never be acceptable. Such allegations are not made lightly.
This simple request should not be obfuscated by irrelevant and incorrect details. In fact, as shown below, it may be addressed with a plain 'Yes' or 'No’.
I sincerely appreciate your offer of a meeting. None of your colleagues or superiors have ever afforded me a dignified exchange, adequate explanation, or an apology, for immeasurable harm caused by systemic malpractice on their watch.
However, you are not privy to an endemic pattern of failure that prevailed prior to you joining this planning department in April 2017. Accordingly, you are unlikely to be fully aware of facts surrounding your observations below. Nevertheless, thank you for offering to discuss related matters in person.
As described earlier, the legislative framework does not offer answers or redress in situations such as this. With respect, I prefer to have a discussion directly with the person who caused life changing damage, to myself and others, once I know without doubt who that person is. The opportunity to dissuade him from ever inflicting similar harm on undeserving members of the public would be a small consolation. It remains the main reason for this request.
Before asking to reconsider your response, allow me to set the record straight:
1) This is one of two requests submitted by myself to date (not part of a large "amount of requests").
2) Request LBH/6101017 was submitted by the Council following a Pre Action Protocol Letter in March 2017 (Before you joined the Haringey team). The letter was necessary following persistent attempts over more than a year, to extract the reason for, and identity of, the official responsible for the detrimental breach of legitimate expectations. The council’s response was followed up by me since, bewilderingly, it suggested that former advice and existing legislation were * “technically incorrect” *. The response was an apparent attempt to justify the aggressive revocation of (formal, express, and unambiguous) advice, and the violation of the legal position, which I had relied upon substantially for over two years. Both the advice and corresponding legislation were unequivocally correct, technically and in every other way.
3) The current requests were submitted with a view to safeguarding public resources and interests, not the opposite (interests that include the protection of legal certainty and faith in the integrity of council representatives and the planning system).
4) The request of 2017 is not “almost identical” to this request. The distinction is critical: The 2017 response finally identified the person responsible for wrongly authorising the unlawful breach. This request seeks to establish if this person was Subjected To -or- Responsible For, the exertion of arbitrary “influences” (influencing, for example, the officer, to rescind an assurance not to issue an enforcement notice, and seemingly, the unreasonable refusal of subsequent planning applications). “Influences” were purported to be “councillor pressure”, hence the need for clarification - circumstantial evidence originally pointed to Councillor Mann, and more recently, to Councillor Alan Strickland (the latter still maintains that a contrarian and arbitrary stance towards the positive development in question was correct).
5) It is wrong to present this request as onerous. It simply asks to confirm if the person responsible for revoking the council’s lawful stance, and for rescinding its promise not to issue an enforcement notice is one and the same. A simple “Yes” would do. If the answer is “No”, this request simply seeks to identify the “influences” cited by the planning enforcement officer on 18 February 2016.
6) "Correspondence relating to planning matters" is outside the scope of this request (even if planning matters were arbitrarily and illicitly determined by the same "influences", subject of this request). Similarly, the purpose of the straightforward “Public Question posed at Cabinet on 16 January 2018” (following consuming and wholly unnecessary proceedings lasting over two years) was to draw attention to systemic misconduct by powerful and unaccountable officials, operating without fear of retribution. It aimed, like this request does, to help ensure that empowered officials do not remain oblivious to the immense harm they can cause undeserving families, businesses and the economy (and evidently to council finances, the concern stated in your response). It is not clear if Councillor Strickland, who answered the question at Cabinet is responsible for your reluctance to comply with this Freedom of Information request.
7) I therefore ask you to please reconsider your response. As shown above, an internal review would be entirely unnecessary in the circumstances. This request is straightforward and uncomplicated. It simply and reasonably seeks to confirm categorically who was responsible for the hypocritical, unlawful and unjust stance against a positive and creative attempt to fulfil policy objectives - to transform a derelict piece of wasteland, riddled with needles and vermin, into a job-generating sustainable development. A modest effort and investment that benefited from overwhelming local support and which, thanks to the person subject of this request, may never materialise despite securing planning permissions.
Thank you again for offering to discuss general issues with me. I urge you not to tarnish your professional career with malpractice. If such a discussion can help flush out the influences responsible for causing profound damage since 2015, as an alternative to this FOI request, then please email me directly so we can take it from there.
Yours sincerely,
Silver Bullet
Dear Haringey Borough Council,
Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.
For the reasons outlined below, I am writing to request an internal review of Haringey Borough Council's handling of my FOI request: 'Unidentified Influences on the decision making of planning officers in Haringey'.
Under unidentified “influences” (purported to be councillor pressure, which may or may not have originated from Cllr Alan Strickland), Haringey council revoked the law as well as its own senior officer’s formal and express representations. It abused significant conferred powers to aggressively and detrimentally enforce an arbitrary stance, against a lawful and harmless attempt to fulfil policy objectives. No remedy is sought for the substantial damage caused over a long period - only a dignified exchange to help understand and prevent similar injustice from recurring. This simple request seeks information identifying beyond doubt the influences responsible. Please fulfil it, either here or offline, in confidence. (a parallel request is for information evidencing related mismanagement of development responsibilities, seemingly under the same “influences”: http://bit.ly/2BVivB6 )
A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/u...
Yours faithfully,
Silver Bullet
Dear Mr Levy,
Thank you for your e-mail on13 February 2018 in which you requested
Internal Review of the response to your Freedom of Information request.
Before we accept your complaint we need to establish exactly why you are
dissatisfied with response sent to you on 8 February 2018. Please can you
therefore contact us to outline your concerns and what outcome you are
seeking. Once this is clarified we can begin the Internal Review if it is
considered appropriate.
Please note that the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) gives people the
right to access information that is held on record by public authorities.
If we have records containing the information that you are seeking, we
must provide a copy of those records to you (unless one of the exemptions
within the Act applies). If we do not have the information on record,
there is no obligation to provide it to you. The Act does not give people
a right to be given answers to questions that they would like to put to a
public authority if this would mean creating new information or would
involve giving opinion or judgement that is not already recorded.
Information which may solely be in someone’s head, (an officer’s
knowledge, for example) is not covered by the Act.
Please note also that when information is released under the FOIA it is
released to the world - we cannot release information 'in confidence' to
you.
Regards,
Sirkku Pietikäinen
Information Governance Officer
Shared Service Centre | Central Team
Haringey Council
5th Floor, Alexandra House, 10 Station Road, Wood Green, London N22 7TR
T. 020 8489 2552
[1][email address]
[2]www.haringey.gov.uk
[3]twitter@haringeycouncil
[4]facebook.com/haringeycouncil
Please consider the environment before printing this email.
Dear Sirkku Pietikäinen,
Thank you for your prompt reply and helpful comments.
The response of 8 February simply does not provide the information.
As requested, I will try to clarify exactly why I am dissatisfied with the response, and the outcome I am seeking:
* On 15 February 2016, a planning enforcement officer detrimentally revoked a representation that has been relied upon substantially for over two years, knowingly causing harm in a difficult period.
* The officer served an enforcement notice, contrary to an earlier assurance not to do so - The rescinded assurance promised to allow for the timely, diligent and arduous preparation of a planning application, together with related materials, in order for this to be submitted by the end of that month (the intended purpose was for the application to be considered by the council with an open mind, with a view to it being determined on the basis of material considerations).
* While proceeding accordingly, the abrupt issuing of an enforcement notice in the middle of the month, contrary to the promise not to do so, had far reaching consequences, including, for example, extremely difficult and consuming appeal proceedings, lasting many months.
* Three days after serving the enforcement notice, on 18 February 2916, the officer, in his email of 12:51, confirmed that “other influences” led to the detrimental, early issuing of the enforcement notice, contrary to the assurance relied upon.
* As you may be aware, a formal Enforcement Notice is a legal and procedural matter involving the exercise of significant conferred powers (it involves costly consequences, allegations, legislation, pressing demands, threats of charges against property, possible prosecution, remedial action etc). It is therefore reasonable to assume that records of the intervening “Other Influences” do exist and held on the public authority’s record.
* The response of 8 February refers to an “almost identical” request in 2017. The earlier response identified the person who authorised the unlawful revocation of legitimate expectations and the issuing of the notice ‘in general’. It is not clear if this official was acting on his own accord or subjected to the “other influences” cited by the officer. ( elsewhere, the "influences" were purported to be "councillor pressure").
* It is not clear if the official identified last year was the “influences” responsible for reneging on the assurance to allow for a planning application to be submitted prior to the serving of the notice. This request is for the records that identify the “other influences” referred to by the officer on 18 February 2016.
I hope this clarifies matters and enables you to conduct a review, and to provide the requested records, identifying the “other influences”.
Yours sincerely,
Silver Bullet
Dear Sue Dios, Sirkku Pietikäinen, or other member of Haringey's feedback and Information team,
The clarification you requested on 13 February was provided the same day.
Despite 6 Secretary of State Decisions against Haringey council, including 3 cost Orders for unreasonable behaviour, one Councillor continues to maintain that the Council’s arbitrary stance was correct.
The contrarian stance in question was not a legitimate subjective opinion concerning planning matters - It involved the unjust and damaging abuse of position and conferred powers, contrary to legislation, policy objectives and planning guidance.
The arbitrary decision is purported to have emanated from unidentified "councillor pressure" and "influences".
It involved:
* Months of aggressive enforcement action against the lawful use of private land (a use that was also Correctly confirmed as Lawful, expressly and repeatedly, in writing, by a senior council officer).
* Detrimental revocation of substantive legitimate expectations - Done in the knowledge that the revocation will cause serious harm, of which council officers were repeatedly informed.
This straightforward request simply seeks disclosure of the information that identifies the "influences" impacting the decision making of the Enforcement Officer.
As explained previously, the "almost identical" response of 2017 does not explain if the acting Team Leader was subjected to the "influences" or acted on his own accord.
The continual lack of an adequate apology or response suggests such unlawful abuse may again be allowed to harm undeserving members of the public, at no fault of their own. It may even happen to someone you know.
Please provide a response without unreasonable delay or confirm that an Internal Review duly started on 13 February.
Thank you
Dear Mr Levy,
Internal Review regarding Freedom of Information request reference
Lbh/6970818
Thank you for email received on 13 February 2018.
Your request for an Internal Review has been logged with the reference
LBH/7115518. Please quote this reference number on any further
correspondence.
We will now review the response you have been sent to the above request
and I aim to let you know the outcome of our investigation by 13 March
2018. If I need longer, I will write to let you know the reason and when
you can expect a full reply.
If you have any questions, please let me know.
Yours sincerely,
Sirkku Pietikäinen
Information Governance Officer
Shared Service Centre | Central Team
Haringey Council
5th Floor, Alexandra House, 10 Station Road, Wood Green, London N22 7TR
T. 020 8489 2552
[1][email address]
[2]www.haringey.gov.uk
[3]twitter@haringeycouncil
[4]facebook.com/haringeycouncil
Please consider the environment before printing this email.
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential, may be
subject to legal privilege and are intended only for the person(s) or
organisation(s) to whom this email is addressed. Any unauthorised use,
retention, distribution, copying or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If
you have received this email in error, please notify the system
administrator at Haringey Council immediately and delete this e-mail from
your system. Although this e-mail and any attachments are believed to be
free of any virus or other defect which might affect any computer or
system into which they are received and opened, it is the responsibility
of the recipient to ensure they are virus free and no responsibility is
accepted for any loss or damage from receipt or use thereof. All
communications sent to or from external third party organisations may be
subject to recording and/or monitoring in accordance with relevant
legislation.
References
Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
2. http://www.haringey.gov.uk/
3. https://twitter.com/haringeycouncil
4. https://www.facebook.com/haringeycouncil
Dear Pietikainen Sirkku,
Please provide a response as promised.
For an unknown reason, an elected member or senior official illicitly used their influence, to divert proper and lawful decision making.
Please disclose the information identifying the individual ultimately responsible, for knowingly harming people’s lives and livelihoods.
As explained previously, we seek to ascertain if the negative influence originated from someone other than Fortune Gumbo (acting head of officer Quick’s team, identified in your response to a related FOI request last year).
Thank You
Dear Mr Levy,
Please see attached our response to your FOI complaint/Internal Review.
I apologise for the dealt in responding to you.
Regards,
Sirkku Pietikäinen
Information Governance Officer
Shared Service Centre | Central Team
Haringey Council
5th Floor, Alexandra House, 10 Station Road, Wood Green, London N22 7TR
T. 020 8489 2552
[1][email address]
[2]www.haringey.gov.uk
[3]twitter@haringeycouncil
[4]facebook.com/haringeycouncil
Please consider the environment before printing this email.
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential, may be
subject to legal privilege and are intended only for the person(s) or
organisation(s) to whom this email is addressed. Any unauthorised use,
retention, distribution, copying or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If
you have received this email in error, please notify the system
administrator at Haringey Council immediately and delete this e-mail from
your system. Although this e-mail and any attachments are believed to be
free of any virus or other defect which might affect any computer or
system into which they are received and opened, it is the responsibility
of the recipient to ensure they are virus free and no responsibility is
accepted for any loss or damage from receipt or use thereof. All
communications sent to or from external third party organisations may be
subject to recording and/or monitoring in accordance with relevant
legislation.
References
Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
2. http://www.haringey.gov.uk/
3. https://twitter.com/haringeycouncil
4. https://www.facebook.com/haringeycouncil
Dear Haringey Feedback and Information Governance Team,
Your response confirms that responsibility rests squarely with Fortune Gumbo, Acting Team Leader - Planning Enforcement and Appeals.
His arbitrary reasons for abusing power to cause substantial harm remain unknown - For his unyielding determination to deliver punishment where praise was due - For instructing his officers to look for nonexistent problems - For aggressive enforcement action, disregarding policy guidance, legislation and formal assurances - to detrimentally breach substantive legitimate expectations and the rule of law.
An untouchable Mr Gumbo may remain unapologetic, unaccountable and unaware of consequences of his unreasonable behaviour. Unreprimanded and unscathed by your administration, without legal redress available through the courts, he is left free to inflict undeserving harm on those he is employed to serve. Therefore, in the future, at an appropriate place and time, answers are likely to be sought directly from him.
Thank you for your assistance with this matter.
We work to defend the right to FOI for everyone
Help us protect your right to hold public authorities to account. Donate and support our work.
Donate Now