Works on lower slopes of Rocklands Caravan Park

The request was refused by Hastings Borough Council.

Dear Hastings Borough Council,

There have been various works on the lower slopes of Rocklands Caravan Park since 2018. Works have included the construction of a sump and pump system, fencing and the use of diggers.

Please provide for the period January 2018 to date the following information:

1. A list of all correspondence(in any form) between Rocklands and HBC concerning these works showing title and date of correspondence.
2. Copies of all correspondence(in any form) between Rocklands and HBC concerning these works.
3. A list of all correspondence(in any form) between HBC departments concerning these works showing title and date of correspondence.
4. Copies of all correspondence(in any form) between HBC departments concerning these works.
5. A list of all correspondence(in any form) between HBC and any other parties concerning these works showing title and date of correspondence.
6. Copies of all correspondence(in any form) between HBC and any other parties concerning these works.

Yours faithfully,

Chris Hurrell

Information Officer, Hastings Borough Council

1 Attachment

Thank you for your Freedom of Information request.
 
We aim to respond to requests for information within 20 working days, in
accordance with the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act. 
 
COVID-19 and Freedom of Information requests.
In light of the unprecedented challenge the Council is facing during the
coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic there may be delays in responding to your
Freedom of Information Request. Please bear with us as we focus on meeting
this challenge, and serving the needs of our community.
 
If your request is for personal information (Subject Access request) your
request will be dealt with according to the requirements of the General
Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the timescale for response may be
extended to 40 days.
 
You can find out more information about [1]Freedom of Information as well
as all of the services the council provides on [2]our website.
 
Information Officer
Hastings Borough Council
01424 451066
[3]www.hastings.gov.uk
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

show quoted sections

This message has been checked for all known viruses by Star Internet
delivered through the MessageLabs Virus Scanning Service. For further
information visit http://www.star.net.uk/stats.asp

References

Visible links
1. https://www.hastings.gov.uk/my_council/f...
2. https://www.hastings.gov.uk/
3. file:///tmp/www.hastings.gov.uk

Information Officer, Hastings Borough Council

2 Attachments

Dear Mr Hurrell
 
I refer to your Freedom of Information request ref: FOIR-223999032, please
accept my apologies for the delay in responding.
 
Please find attached our response.
 
 
 
 
Yours sincerely
 
Lisa Greathead
Information Officer
Hastings Borough Council
Muriel Matters House
Breeds Place
Hastings 
TN34 3UY
 
 
 

show quoted sections

This message has been checked for all known viruses by Star Internet
delivered through the MessageLabs Virus Scanning Service. For further
information visit http://www.star.net.uk/stats.asp

Dear Hastings Borough Council,

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

I am writing to request an internal review of Hastings Borough Council's handling of my FOI request 'Works on lower slopes of Rocklands Caravan Park'.

I request a review on the grounds that the request has failed to consider the specific details of this request , fails to follow ICO regulations and guidance and relies upon unrelated letters, previous unrelated refusals and unrelated ICO decisions to refuse this request. I ask the review to properly consider the request and to address the following issues:

The request has not been properly considered under EIR. No exception reasons have been given for the refusal. The public interest test has not been considered. Previous rulings against HBC by the ICO found fault that HBC did not supply exception reasons. Three of the ICO decisions cited in the refusal by HBC found fault with HBC for failing to give exception reasons when refusing a request (FER0887781, FS50891120, FER0887780 ) HBC continues to ignore regulations and guidance , it would be helpful if HBC had read the cited ICO decisions rather than trying to use them to refuse the release of information.

The refusal relies on a letter dated the 24 October 2019 advising that HBC would “not respond to any subjects relating to Rocklands Caravan Park and Ecclesbourne Glen that have previously dealt with and have been exhausted”. The letter is used as justification for not answering repeat requests, without actually confirming that they are repeat and not just about the same subjects/topics.This is a blanket ban based upon the letter. Each request must be dealt with on its own merits and the letter has no bearing on this or any other EIR request. In any case the request does not ask for information that has been requested before. The request asks for correspondence in 3 separate categories dating from 2018. An exception reason has not been supplied.

The examples cited by HBC of ICO decision Notices refer to information requests that do not cover the same information requested by the current request. They do not overlap with the current request at all. Furthermore most of the ICO decision notices were not released until after the date of this information request and therefore cannot be used as a reason for refusal.

The information has been refused on a blanket basis. No explanation has been given as to why lists of correspondence in the 3 categories are refused nor why copies of the correspondence in the 3 categories are refused. An exception reason has not been supplied.

The refusal states that “the Caravan Site Licence is private matter between the local authority and owner”. The information requested does not refer to the CSL it requests correspondence concerning works on the lower slopes. If some of these works are CSL then they should be refused on a 1 by 1 basis citing a relevant exception condition. All other correspondence concerning planning, environmental info etc is nothing to do with the CSL. This does not prevent CSL correspondence being listed. An exception reason has not been supplied.

The refusal states that “Drainage and Fencing are part of the site licence conditions, details of which have been provided to you previously.” I have not requested information on drainage and fencing this time . I have requested correspondence. Correspondence has not been requested before .An exception reason has not been supplied.

The refusal states that “In relation to the use of diggers, please can I refer you to your email dated 11 April 2019 under the subject ‘Digger at work on the lower slopes of Rocklands – do Rocklands have permission for these works’ to Licensing cc’d to Mike Hepworth and his response – copy of which is attached for ease”. I have not requested information on diggers. I have requested correspondence. Correspondence has not been requested before. HBC have supplied me with correspondence between myself and HBC which is irrelevant to my request. I have not requested correspondence between myself and HBC.

The refusal claims that any further information may have been lost since the departure of the Licencing Manager. “Our Licensing Manager has now left Hastings Borough Council, therefore we are unable to establish if any further information is held in relation to the use of diggers.” I have not requested information on diggers. I have requested correspondence. That has not been requested before. Why has information been lost following the departure of an officer? Surely such correspondence is kept for 6 years? Surely other departments/persons were involved and would have copies? This is not the first time that HBC have claimed to lose information when an officer leaves. Recent examples include HBC claims of lost information when Mr Sawyer, Mr Berresford and Ms Virginia Gilbert .

This claim conflicts with a statement given to the ICO noted in decision notice FS50891120 paragraphs 41 and 42 that no information was held on laptops and that any information subject to the Data Retention Policy would be recorded if it was deleted. The redacted correspondence, disclosed in this latest request, seems to suggest that there have been liaisons between Mr Bob Brown and Rocklands – is that all information retained in his head, or was that recorded elsewhere? The correspondence seems to suggest that it was recorded information, or how else would it be established that the boundary post were correct to plans, etc. Has all this information been lost as claimed?

The response from HBC now states that the information is held, this conflicts with the response from the Council during the ICO investigation , ICO decision notice - FER0887781 dated 29 July 2020 – which stated that there was information held. The Council stated that they had searched emails between the Council and Rocklands, etc and that there was no information held that could answer my questions. If the current request is a duplicate request then the response should be the same, and if there is now information held that was not available during the previous investigations then it is a new request, and not a duplicate request:
"39. It clarified that the records it does hold have been viewed by its licensing and planning department, including emails between Hastings Borough Council and the site owners, along with the content held on its back office systems, which includes the current site licence and conditions. No additional information was located which could respond to the questions asked.
40. It said that information would be held in both paper, and electronic formats, and that searches have been carried out of both of these formats. It said that searches have been carried out via Acolaid and IDOX, the council’s main database for relevant information."

The refusal apologises for the delay but does not explain why a response was only received after ICO intervention following a complaint. HBC regularly fails to respond to information requests on time. The 5 cited ICO decisions all find fault with HBC on this issue.

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

Yours faithfully,

Chris Hurrell

Information Officer, Hastings Borough Council

1 Attachment

Thank you for your Freedom of Information request.
 
We aim to respond to requests for information within 20 working days, in
accordance with the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act. 
 
COVID-19 and Freedom of Information requests.
In light of the unprecedented challenge the Council is facing during the
coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic there may be delays in responding to your
Freedom of Information Request. Please bear with us as we focus on meeting
this challenge, and serving the needs of our community.
If your request is for personal information (Subject Access request) your
request will be dealt with according to the requirements of the General
Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the timescale for response may be
extended to 40 days.
 
You can find out more information about [1]Freedom of Information as well
as all of the services the council provides on [2]our website.
 
Information Officer
Hastings Borough Council
01424 451066
[3]www.hastings.gov.uk
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

show quoted sections

This message has been checked for all known viruses by Star Internet
delivered through the MessageLabs Virus Scanning Service. For further
information visit http://www.star.net.uk/stats.asp

References

Visible links
1. https://www.hastings.gov.uk/my_council/f...
2. https://www.hastings.gov.uk/
3. file:///tmp/www.hastings.gov.uk

Information Officer, Hastings Borough Council

Dear Mr Hurrell

I refer to your request for an internal review dated 2 March 2021.

I am writing to inform you that unfortunately there has been a delay in processing your request due to the current COVID-19 pandemic and increased workload.

Please accept my apologies, the investigating officer will respond as soon as possible.

Yours sincerely
Lisa Greathead
Information Officer

show quoted sections

Dear Information Officer,

I still await a review of this request. A further 10 months has passed which seems to exceed the time limit on "as soon as possible".

Please review my request .

Yours sincerely,

Chris Hurrell

Information Officer, Hastings Borough Council

1 Attachment

Thank you for your Freedom of Information request.
 
We aim to respond to requests for information within 20 working days, in
accordance with the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act. 
COVID-19 and Freedom of Information requests.
In light of the unprecedented challenge the Council is facing during the
coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic there may be delays in responding to your
Freedom of Information Request. Please bear with us as we focus on meeting
this challenge, and serving the needs of our community.
If your request is for personal information (Subject Access request) your
request will be dealt with according to the requirements of the General
Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the timescale for response may be
extended to 40 days.
 
You can find out more information about [1]Freedom of Information as well
as all of the services the council provides on [2]our website.
 
Information Officer
Hastings Borough Council
01424 451066
[3]www.hastings.gov.uk
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

References

Visible links
1. https://www.hastings.gov.uk/my_council/f...
2. https://www.hastings.gov.uk/
3. file:///tmp/www.hastings.gov.uk

Information Officer, Hastings Borough Council

Dear Mr Hurrell

Please accept my apologies, this is an error on my part. I thought I was up to date other than your recent request for an internal review for Notice Boards and Signposts at Hastings Country Park which is currently being undertaken.

I will now process your request for an internal review re: Works on lower slopes of Rocklands Caravan Park and respond once this has been carried out.

Yours sincerely
Lisa Greathead
Information Officer

show quoted sections

Dear Information Officer,

Many thanks .

Yours sincerely,

Chris Hurrell

Information Officer, Hastings Borough Council

1 Attachment

Thank you for your Freedom of Information request.
 
We aim to respond to requests for information within 20 working days, in
accordance with the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act. 
COVID-19 and Freedom of Information requests.
In light of the unprecedented challenge the Council is facing during the
coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic there may be delays in responding to your
Freedom of Information Request. Please bear with us as we focus on meeting
this challenge, and serving the needs of our community.
If your request is for personal information (Subject Access request) your
request will be dealt with according to the requirements of the General
Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the timescale for response may be
extended to 40 days.
 
You can find out more information about [1]Freedom of Information as well
as all of the services the council provides on [2]our website.
 
Information Officer
Hastings Borough Council
01424 451066
[3]www.hastings.gov.uk
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

References

Visible links
1. https://www.hastings.gov.uk/my_council/f...
2. https://www.hastings.gov.uk/
3. file:///tmp/www.hastings.gov.uk

Information Officer, Hastings Borough Council

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Hurrell
 
I refer to your email dated 2 March 2021 requesting an Internal Review
following our response to a recent Freedom of Information request ref:
FOIR-223999032 Subject: Works on lower slopes of Rocklands Caravan Park
 
I have been asked, as a senior officer of the council who has not been
involved in your case to look into how we handled your request.  Please
accept my apologies for the delay in responding.
 
Hastings Borough Council received the following request on 3 July 2020
 
There have been various works on the lower slopes of Rocklands Caravan
Park since 2018. Works have included the construction of a sump and pump
system, fencing and the use of diggers.
 
Please provide for the period January 2018 to date the following
information:
 
1. A list of all correspondence(in any form)  between Rocklands and HBC
concerning these works showing title and date of correspondence.
2. Copies of all correspondence(in any form)  between Rocklands and HBC
concerning these works.
3. A list of all correspondence(in any form)  between HBC departments
concerning these works showing title and date of correspondence.
4. Copies of all correspondence(in any form)  between  HBC departments
concerning these works.
5. A list of all correspondence(in any form)  between HBC and any other
parties concerning these works showing title and date of correspondence.
6. Copies of all correspondence(in any form)  between HBC and any other
parties concerning these works.
 
Hastings Borough Council responded on the 1 February 2021
 
Hastings Borough Council’s Chief Legal Officer wrote to you on the 24
October 2019 advising that we would not respond to any subjects relating
to Rocklands Caravan Park and Eccelsbourne Glen that have previously dealt
with and have been exhausted.
 
Please refer to the following decision notices from the Information
Commissioner (ICO) regarding subjects you refer to within this request. In
addition to this the Caravan Site Licence is private matter between the
local authority and owner, there is no public consultation. Drainage and
Fencing are part of the site licence conditions, details of which have
been provided to you previously.
 
ICO decision notice - FER0887781 dated 29 July 2020 - Erection of signage
and fencing
ICO decision notice - FS50891120 dated 2 July 2020 - Heras Fencing
ICO decision notice - FER0887780 dated 29 July 2020 - Lower Slope
stability
ICO decision notice - FER0887782 dated 29 July 2020 - Rocklands
improvements to drainage as specified by caravan site licence
ICO decision notice - FS50819028 dated 6 May 2020 - Information on
drainage reports mentioned in correspondence and the council’s email dated
21 May 2020 disclosing the information as ordered by the ICO.
 
In relation to the use of diggers, please can I refer you to your email
dated 11 April 2019 under the subject ‘Digger at work on the lower slopes
of Rocklands – do Rocklands have permission for these works’ to Licensing
cc’d to Mike Hepworth and his response – copy of which is attached for
ease.
 
Our Licensing Manager has now left Hastings Borough Council, therefore we
are unable to establish if any further information is held in relation to
the use of diggers.
 
Please note that names/addresses/telephone numbers and e mail addresses
have been redacted as these fall under Section 40 (2) of the Freedom of
Information Act: Personal data. This is an absolute exemption and will not
be provided.
 
 
You requested an internal review on the 2 March 2021
 
I am writing to request an internal review of Hastings Borough Council's
handling of my FOI request 'Works on lower slopes of Rocklands Caravan
Park'.
 
I request a review on the grounds that the request has failed to consider
the specific details of this request , fails to follow ICO regulations and
guidance and relies upon unrelated letters, previous unrelated refusals
and unrelated ICO decisions to refuse this request.  I ask the review to
properly consider the request and to address the following issues:
 
The request has not been properly considered under EIR.  No exception
reasons have been given for the refusal. The public interest test has not
been considered. Previous rulings against HBC by the ICO found fault that
HBC did not supply exception reasons. Three of the ICO decisions cited in
the refusal by HBC found fault with HBC for failing to give exception
reasons when refusing a request  (FER0887781, FS50891120, FER0887780 ) HBC
continues to ignore regulations and guidance , it would be helpful if HBC
had read the cited ICO decisions rather than trying to use them to refuse
the release of information.
 
The refusal relies on a letter dated the 24 October 2019 advising that HBC
would “not respond to any subjects relating to Rocklands Caravan Park and
Ecclesbourne  Glen that have previously dealt with and have been
exhausted”.  The letter is used as justification for not answering repeat
requests, without actually confirming that they are repeat and not just
about the same subjects/topics.This is a blanket ban based upon the
letter. Each request must be dealt with on its own merits and the letter
has no bearing on this or any other EIR request. In any case the request
does not ask for information that has been requested before. The request
asks for correspondence in 3 separate categories dating from 2018. An
exception reason has not been supplied.
 
The examples cited by HBC of ICO decision Notices refer to information
requests that do not cover the same information requested by the current
request. They do not overlap with the current request at all. Furthermore
most of the ICO decision notices were not released until after the date of
this information request and therefore cannot be used as a reason for
refusal.
 
The information has been refused on a blanket basis. No explanation has
been given as to why lists of correspondence in the 3 categories are
refused nor why copies of the correspondence in the 3 categories are
refused. An exception reason has not been supplied.
 
The refusal states that “the Caravan Site Licence is private matter
between the local authority and owner”.  The information requested does
not refer to the CSL it requests correspondence concerning works on the
lower slopes.  If some of these works are CSL then they should be refused
on a 1 by 1 basis citing a relevant exception condition.  All other
correspondence concerning planning, environmental info etc  is nothing to
do with the CSL. This does not prevent CSL correspondence being listed. An
exception reason has not been supplied.
 
The refusal states that “Drainage and Fencing are part of the site licence
conditions, details of which have been provided to you previously.” I have
not requested information on drainage and fencing this time . I have
requested correspondence. Correspondence has not been requested before .An
exception reason has not been supplied.
 
The refusal states that “In relation to the use of diggers, please can I
refer you to your email dated 11 April 2019 under the subject ‘Digger at
work on the lower slopes of Rocklands – do Rocklands have permission for
these works’ to Licensing cc’d to Mike Hepworth and his response – copy of
which is attached for ease”. I have not requested information on diggers.
I have requested correspondence. Correspondence has not been requested
before. HBC have supplied me with correspondence between myself and HBC
which is irrelevant to my request. I have not requested correspondence
between myself and HBC.
 
The refusal claims that any further information may have been lost since
the departure of the Licencing Manager. “Our Licensing Manager has now
left Hastings Borough Council, therefore we are unable to establish if any
further information is held in relation to the use of diggers.” I have not
requested information on diggers. I have requested correspondence. That 
has not been requested before. Why has information been lost following the
departure of an officer? Surely such correspondence is kept for 6 years?
Surely other departments/persons were involved and would have copies? This
is not the first time that HBC have claimed to lose information when an
officer leaves. Recent examples include HBC claims of lost information
when Mr Sawyer, Mr Berresford and Ms Virginia Gilbert .
 
This claim conflicts with a statement given to the ICO noted in decision
notice FS50891120 paragraphs 41 and 42 that no information was held on
laptops and that any information subject to the Data Retention Policy
would be recorded if it was deleted. The redacted correspondence,
disclosed in this latest request, seems to suggest that there have been
liaisons between Mr Bob Brown and Rocklands – is that all information
retained in his head, or was that recorded elsewhere?  The correspondence
seems to suggest that it was recorded information, or how else would it be
established that the boundary post were correct to plans, etc.   Has all
this information been lost as claimed?
 
The response from HBC now states that the information is held, this
conflicts with the response from the Council during the ICO investigation
, ICO decision notice - FER0887781 dated 29 July 2020 – which stated  that
there was information held. The Council stated that they had searched
emails between the Council and Rocklands, etc and that there was no
information held that could answer my  questions.  If the current request 
is a duplicate request then the response should be the same, and if there
is now information held that was not available during the previous
investigations then it is a new request, and not a duplicate request:
 
"39. It clarified that the records it does hold have been viewed by its
licensing and planning department, including emails between Hastings
Borough Council and the site owners, along with the content held on its
back office systems, which includes the current site licence and
conditions. No additional information was located which could respond to
the questions asked.
 
40. It said that information would be held in both paper, and electronic
formats, and that searches have been carried out of both of these formats.
It said that searches have been carried out via Acolaid and IDOX, the
council’s main database for relevant information."
 
The refusal apologises for the delay but does not explain why a response
was only received after ICO intervention following a complaint. HBC
regularly fails to respond to information requests on time. The 5 cited
ICO decisions all find fault with HBC on this issue.
 
A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on
the Internet at this address:
[1]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/w...
 
Review
 
Your request related to ‘Works on the lower slopes of Rocklands Caravan
Park’ which includes the construction of a sump and pump system, fencing
and the use of diggers.
 
You say that you have not requested information in relation to these
topics but correspondence, this is the same as information that is held.
 
Hastings Borough Council (HBC) has over 9 years responded to many requests
under both the Freedom of Information Act and Environmental Information
Regulations.  You have also taken a vast amount of requests to the
Information Commissioner whereby most have been part upheld by the fact
the we took longer to comply with requests than the 20 working days.
 
The decision notices referred to in the Information Officers response
dated 1 February 2021 relate to fencing and drainage and you have been
provided with all that is held relating to diggers.
 
Hastings Borough Council has not introduced a blanket ban following the
letter from our Chief Legal Officer, you were advised that we would not
deal with subjects that have been dealt with previously. 
 
I can confirm I have been in contact with out IT department regarding Bob
Brown’s email account, although Mr Brown has left HBC his email account is
still open and I was given permission to view, along with correspondence
stored on our h drive.  Having checked his in/sent and archive boxes and
files stored on the h drive I have been unable to locate any further
correspondence/information on the construction of a sump and pump system,
fencing and the use of diggers.
 
If you remain dissatisfied then you may complain to the Information
Commissioners Office (ICO) who will decide whether the Council has handled
your request correctly.
 
Information Commissioners Office
Wycliffe House
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
 
Tel: 08456 30 60 60
[2]www.ico.gov.uk
 
Yours sincerely
 
 
 
Mark Horan
Continuous Improvement and Democratic Services Manager
 
 
 

References

Visible links
1. https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/w...
2. file:///tmp/www.ico.gov.uk