Government reject former Cabinet MP’s FoI request for report he commissioned!

“As Energy Secretary, he was a target for journalists wielding the Freedom of Information Act.

Now, after being ousted from Parliament in the May 2015 general election, Sir Ed Davey has been forced to resort to using the transparency legislation himself – in an attempt to read a report he commissioned.

But, in a dark twist, civil servants, who just 18 months ago worked with him, have rejected his FOI request asking them to publish a study on the true costs of different electricity sources.

The former Lib Dem cabinet member has accused the Government of “an abuse of power” after it rejected his FOI request to publish the Frontier Economics study into the true costs of different electricity sources, which was submitted to ministers by the consultancy at the start of this year.

Responding to Sir Ed’s requests, the Government acknowledged a public interest in publishing the report but said it would do so “in due course” when it could provide “sufficient context”.

“The excuse for this delay is clearly self-serving nonsense,” Sir Ed said. “It’s an independent report that can stand alone without any spin from Conservative ministers.”…

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/11/05/access-denied-government-rejects-sir-ed-daveys-request-for-energ/

EDDC: Can’t tell us what they did – because someone else did it for them and they have no paperwork!

THIS IS HOW EDDC DEALS WITH MANY OF OUR FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUESTS – A MASTERPIECE OF LAME EXCUSES, AVOIDANCE AND POSSIBLY WORSE.

The implication in the correspondence below raises serious questions.

1. EDDC does not appear to check what a third-party has done on its behalf.
2. It does not seem to ask for proof that the third party has done the work.
3. It seems to allow work that needs legal clearance to go ahead on the basis of 1 and 2 above with seemingly no proof that it IS legal.

FIRST YOU MAKE A CLEAR REQUEST:

Dear East Devon District Council,

“Following Cllr Moulding’s statement of today’s date (28.09.16) on BBC Radio Devon, that EDDC had ‘used a badger expert, and applied for the relevant license from Natural England’, in respect of the badgers identified as living on the site of the Jungle Fun and Crazy Golf, on The Queen’s Drive, Exmouth, I would like to request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and Environmental Information Regulations 2004, the following additional information:

1. When were badgers first identified as living on the Jungle Fun and crazy golf site?
2. On what date was the ‘badger expert’, Dr. Brown, enlisted by EDDC in respect of the badgers on the Jungle fun and crazy golf site, and what was his brief?
3 – Please provide Dr. Brown’s report pertaining to the badgers on the Jungle Fun and crazy golf site in full.
4. On what date was a license to interfere with a sett applied for with Natural England?
5. Please provide full details of the application made (the original application form and all attached material, and any relevant communications).
6. On what date, if at all, was this license granted?
7. Following the Radio Devon report in which it was stated permission had been given to move the badgers to a new site, please confirm that date on which that has, or will, happen, and any related documentation.

Yours faithfully,”

THEN EDDC GIVES YOU A REPLY ON SOME POINTS – WITH CRUCIAL INFORMATION MISSING ON THE REST – THIS TIME SAYING IT IS BECAUSE ANOTHER ORGANISATION MADE THE APPLICATION ON THEIR BEHALF AND THEY HAVEN’T SEEN WHAT THAT ORGANISATION ASKED FOR OR THE LICENCE THAT ORGANISATION SAYS IT GOT FOR THEM:

[Points 1-3 are answered]

… In respect of parts (4-7) of your request, the application was made on behalf of the council and we do not hold a copy of the application or
licence itself
.”

SO YOU ASK AGAIN – ANOTHER DELAY FOR UP TO 20 DAYS TILL THEY REPLY

“I would like to further request under the FOI act 200 and Environmental Regulations Act 2004:

1 – Who made the application of behalf of the Council.
2 – On what date did they make this application.
3 – As the requested application was made on behalf of the Council I would like to re-request a copy of the original application, as I believe this is ‘information held by another person on behalf of the authority’, which as stated in the ICO report (https://ico.org.uk/media/1148/informatio… ) , is held for the purposes of the FOI act.”

A smell of badger poo somewhere?

EDDC’s knuckles thrashed three times by Information Commissioner

From Save our Sidmouth website today. Coruscating condemnation of their secrecy over Knowle relocation.

“Knowle relocation project: BREAKING NEW

Information Commissioner tells East Devon District Council to publish documentation

News just in that the ICO have released three Decision Notices. They will be available on their website shortly:

https://search.ico.org.uk/ico/search/decisionnotice

Meanwhile, here is an overview:

Case: FER0626901
Pegasus agreement re Knowle

The ICO are telling EDDC to come up with all of this:

“I would like the Council to disclose the details of the agreement it has entered into with Pegasus for the Knowle site.
I would like to see the full, unredacted version of the agreement.
I understand that the information at issue would not be exploited by a competitor and that disclosure would not place either party at a commercial disadvantage.
All parties, including Pegasus, will have known that they would be subject to the FOIA when the agreement was signed.
To reiterate, I would like the full publication of the commercial terms of the agreement.
I would like you to provide me with all of the documentation I have requested: in their original electronic versions and not in their scanned versions.”

From: Pegasus agreement re Knowle – a Freedom of Information request to East Devon District Council – WhatDoTheyKnow

Case: FER0608237
Projected maintenance costs for relocation project

The ICO say EDDC don’t have to produce spreadsheets but have to publish the following re the new-build at Honiton:

“To disclose the price that the developer is prepared to pay for the land from the cash flow documents which the council withheld.”

The ‘Conclusions’ are interesting, however:

“53. There is a public interest in protecting the public purse, in this case this is balanced in this case against the public interest in allowing the public to scrutinise the council’s decisions and financial assumptions about the project to develop new offices for itself. This latter aspect clearly raises the level of transparency which would be expected as the council could be seen to be spending public money on its own facilities, for its own purposes. It has argued that it needs to change offices as overall, doing so would save the public money compared to staying in its current offices. The public however cannot know whether this is true without further information being open for them to scrutinise.”

With ref to:
Projected maintenance costs for relocation project – a Freedom of Information request to East Devon District Council – WhatDoTheyKnow

Case: FER0623403
Decision process which led to the award of the conditional contract with Pegasus re Knowle

The ICO are telling EDDC to come up with the last from this list – EDDC having given the first 5, but not the 6th:

“I request information on the decision to award a contract to PegasusLife for the development of the Knowle site in Sidmouth, including, but not limited to:
1. Bid documentation provided to prospective bidders;
2. process for and criteria for selection of successful bidder;
3. Number of organisations who expressed an interest in bidding;
4. Number of organisations who submitted a bid;
5. Names of organisations who submitted a bid;
6. Minutes of meetings and correspondence on the subject.”

From:
Decision process which led to the award of the conditional contract with Pegasus re Knowle – a Freedom of Information request to East Devon District Council – WhatDoTheyKnow

Exmouth Splat – how do we get from here to there?

Freedom of Information request and (non) answer


[Exmouth] Watersports centre
Date submitted: 18 October 2016
Summary of request

“Please can you tell me, how will the proposed watersports centre on Exmouth seafront gain access to the sea?

Will there be a water channel bulldozed across the beach from where the existing road is right up to the waters edge?

Will the proposal effectively slice the beach into two sections separated by water?

What engineering assessment has been prepared of the effects of any such channel or watery access on the currents, wave action and ensuing changes to sediment/sand erosions and depositions?

Summary of response

No formal planning application has been received for the development you refer to and no information is currently held which provides answers to the questions you have raised.”

Date responded: 19 October 2016

http://eastdevon.gov.uk/access-to-information/freedom-of-information/freedom-of-information-published-requests/

External auditor holding up EDDC final accounts

“Whilst our audit work on the financial statements and VFM conclusion is almost complete, as set out above, we have received a formal objection from a local elector.

We are in the process of considering this objection, which relates to the Council’s approach to recording and obtaining receipt of monies due to it from developers through agreements under s106 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990.

If we are able to conclude this work before the end of the month then, subject to the outcome of this, we anticipate issuing our audit report by the 30th September for the Council to publish audited financial statements.

If, however, the work extends beyond this timescale then we will have to withhold our audit certificate within the audit report until the work on the objection has been completed.”

Click to access 220916-agenda-item-8-combined-reports.pdf

(pages 121 and repeated on page 131)

Almost certainly related to this:

https://eastdevonwatch.org/2016/09/13/eddc-and-its-section-106-black-hole/

Information Commissioner says Council business plans cannot be secret

Repercussions for EDDC? You can bet Exeter City Council will appeal!

“Exeter Green Party has clashed with Exeter City Council over secret information about the financial viability of St Sidwell’s Point.

The Greens made a request under the Freedom of Information Act (FOI) to access parts of the business case for the planned council owned leisure complex.

They say the council has “persistently refused” to give them the information.

Green Party member Peter Cleasby complained to the Information Commissioner, the independent authority set up by Parliament to uphold public access to documents.

Mr Cleasby said the public had a legitimate right to see information shared privately to councillors about the financial viability of the leisure complex project.

The commissioner agreed, and has ordered the council to publish its estimates of income from the leisure centre.

The council are seeking advice regarding an appeal against this decision.

Mr Cleasby said: “The public were not consulted about whether we wanted the leisure centre or not. We were simply told that £26 million of the Council’s money would be spent on building it.

“We were not offered the chance to suggest other uses for £26 million, and we were not allowed to see the assumptions made by the Council about whether the leisure centre could be run without being a drain on public finances.

“So as an individual I asked for this information to be made available for scrutiny by others who could form an independent view on whether the numbers added up. The Council refused, three times changing their reasons for not releasing it.”

A council spokesperson hit back, saying: “The public were consulted multiple times in accordance with the open and transparent planning process for what will be one of the greenest schemes of its kind anywhere in the country.

“As Mr Cleasby has pointed out, we are entitled to appeal the Information Commissioner’s decision and we are taking appropriate advice.”

Diana Moore, former parliamentary candidate for the Green Party in Exeter, said: “Exeter Green Party are not opposed to a new leisure complex in principle, but openness and real public engagement are essential in major projects of this sort.”

http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/exeter-council-clash-with-greens-ahead-of-st-sidwell-s-point-planning-decision/story-29781273-detail/story.html

PM must publish secret papers about refusing Brexit vote in Parliament

“The government has been forced by a senior judge to reveal secret legal arguments for refusing to let parliament decide when and how the UK should withdraw from the European Union.

In a preliminary victory for those challenging Theresa May’s power to trigger Brexit, a high court judge, Mr Justice Cranston, has swept aside restrictions on publishing official documents before the hearing on 13 October.

In the released documents, lawyers for the government argue that it is “constitutionally impermissible” for parliament to be given the authority rather than the prime minister and dismiss any notion that the devolved nations – Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales – will have any say in the process”.

They add: “The appropriate point at which the UK should begin the procedure required by article 50 [of the European Union treaty] to give effect to [notifying the UK’s exit] is a matter of high, if not the highest policy.

“It is a polycentric decision based upon a multitude of domestic and foreign policy and political concerns for which the expertise of ministers and their officials are particularly well-suited and the courts ill-suited.”

Responding to the release of the skeleton arguments, John Halford, a solicitor partner at Bindmans law firm which represents the People’s Challenge, a crowd-funded group, said: “The court’s order allows a floodlight to be shone on the government’s secret reasons for believing it alone can bring about Brexit without any meaningful parliamentary scrutiny.

“Those who were unsettled by the government’s insistence on its defence being kept secret will now be surprised by the contents, including submissions that Brexit has nothing constitutionally to do with the Scottish and Northern Ireland devolved governments, that parliament ‘clearly understood’ it was surrendering any role it might have in Brexit by passing the EU Referendum Act, that it has no control over making and withdrawal from treaties and that individuals can have fundamental rights conferred by acts of parliament stripped away if and when the executive withdraws from the treaties on which they are based.

“These arguments will be tested in court next month, but now they can be debated by the public too.”

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/sep/28/government-must-disclose-legal-arguments-article-50-procedure-peoples-challenge

Yet here in East Devon we are not allowed to know anything about EDDC’s negotiations with PegasusLife. Strange that.

“Right to know Day”

International Right to Know Day is an annual occasion designed to promote freedom of information worldwide.

In 2016, 250 years since the launch of the world’s first Freedom of Information law in Sweden, the right to request information from public bodies is as important as ever to democracy.

The Information Commissioner:

Acts on Complaints
Works to improve transparency in public sector outsourcing
Provides guidance and helping raise awareness of information rights
Is independent

https://iconewsblog.wordpress.com/2016/09/28/international-right-to-know-day-2016/

and EDDC is one of a handful of councils that the ICO has taken to court (Knowle consultancy secrecy) where the ICO won its case and forced previously secret papers to be published.

“‘Secrecy’ over public spending exposed by Transparency International report”

“Secrecy and lack of information about UK public spending is so great that in more than a third of cases, the ordinary taxpayer can’t even know who has been awarded a Government or local authority contract, a new report has found.

Spending data was so heavily redacted, the campaign group Transparency International claimed, that in just one month a single London borough – Hackney – recorded £14 million of payments without revealing to the public who got the money.

Nationally, the Counting the Pennies report said that at least 35 per cent – more than a third – of published local and central government tender data did not even show who was awarded the contract.

Descriptions of what public authorities had purchased were, the report said, often so vague as to be “almost meaningless.”

And, it was reported, spending data was displayed in such a bewildering variety of different ways – “with 81,057 different column names used by public authorities to describe the money they have spent” – that the ordinary taxpayer trying to trace how their money was spent would be left baffled.

The result, said Duncan Hames, the director of Transparency International UK, was that people may be getting away with corruption in public office.

He said: “Open data is an essential tool in the fight against corruption. Real transparency significantly reduces hiding places for corrupt individuals and allows the public to hold the Government to account.

“There is a danger that although the Government are ticking the right boxes, the true spirit of transparency is being lost. The result is a missed opportunity to flush out questionable contacts and root out waste.”

The report analysed a total of £2.3 trillion of published transactions made by local and central government between 2011 and 2015. It concluded: “The UK has, in theory, one of the most open governments in the world, [but] the system is not working properly in practice.”

Despite Government guidelines calling for as much transparency as possible over public spending, the researchers found: “A significant amount of the transaction data that is being published appears to be redacted unnecessarily, in effect hiding the details of potentially substantial payments.”

In one London borough, which was unnamed in the report, £512 million of transactions – equivalent to 52 per cent of all transactions the council published – “were redacted so there was little information about the nature of these payments.”

The researchers put another London borough, Hackney, at the top of a ‘league table’ of public bodies ranked in terms of the highest value of transactions that were redacted in a single month.

In May 2015, the researchers claimed, Hackney recorded £14,050,025.66 spent in direct debits where the names of the suppliers paid by the council were redacted – leaving council tax payers unable to tell who had received £14 million of their money.

Difficulties in tracking how taxpayers’ money was spent, the report added, were compounded by the fact that in only 0.75 per cent of cases nationwide, (1 recorded transaction in 133), did the public body provide the unique Companies House identification number of the firm receiving its money.

Comments from Sussex University students asked to find out how councils and central government were spending taxpayers’ money by using the data they had published included: “If you’re a citizen you would simply give up.”

This was despite measures such as the UK Open Government National Action Plan, launched at the international Anti-Corruption Summit overseen by then Prime Minister David Cameron (at a time when he was under fire over his own family’s finances because of the Panama Papers leak.)

“These commitments are welcome,” the report concluded, “However it is now imperative that government works closely with civil society to make sure they are implemented in practice.”

Commenting on the £14 million spend where recipients of public money weren’t identified, a spokeswoman for Hackney Council said: “A large proportion of the figures listed were direct debit payments. We weren’t able to include the details of these payments in data collection at that time, but the value of the payments were included so that we could offer as much information as possible.

“Since April 2016, following improvements to our banking system, we have been able to provide the full details.”

A Cabinet Office spokesman said: “”This Government is determined to deliver on its commitment to continue to be the most transparent government in the world and we continue to build on this.

“We are the first G7 country to have committed to the Open Contracting Data Standard on our central purchasing authority and we are now improving the quality and transparency of government grants.

“We are also improving the Freedom of Information Act, making more data available across the public sector, and will continue to make government more open.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/secrecy-over-public-spending-exposed-taxpayers-money-government-corruption-where-is-taxpayers-money-a7327186.html

Freedom of Information and transparency

“The Information Commissioner, Elizabeth Denham, is to raise with ministers the transparency issues created by private companies providing an increasing proportion of public services.

Denham, who was previously information commissioner for British Columbia in Canada, replaced Christopher Graham at the Information Commissioner’s Office in July.

In an interview with Martin Rosenbaum of the BBC she said: “Private contractors above a certain threshold for a contract or doing some specific types of work could be included under the FOI Act. The government could do more to include private bodies that are basically doing work on behalf of the public.”

Denham also said she intended to review how the ICO tackles public authorities with a poor track record of handling FOI requests. This will include examining the threshold at which authorities that fail to meet deadlines for meeting requests become subject to special monitoring.
The Information commissioner said: “Looking at this from the outside, most of the public would have the view that more than one in 10 not getting a timely response to a request is not a sign of success.”

Denham also warned that the Government’s proposed introduction of fees for those who want to appeal against ICO decisions to the Information Rights Tribunal could lead to “a chill” in requesters using the appeal process.”

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=28253%3Ainformation-commissioner-to-raise-issue-of-transparency-in-era-of-greater-outsourcing&catid=59&Itemid=27

EDDC – Exmouth: searching questions about relationship with former ” preferred partner”

“Dear East Devon District Council,

I make this request under the FOI Act and Environmental regs

We have learned from local press reports that EDDC has ended the status of Moirai Capital Investments as preferred partner in relation to the regeneration of Exmouth.

Has council made any payments to Moirai, or any agent on their behalf (JLL?) and if so, what are the details.

What meetings have been held with Moirai or any of it’s agents and what officer time or other costs have been incurred. Full details please , to include dates, place of meeting and officers/members meeting.

Is it correct that EDDC has been taking councillors (and any others e.g regeneration panel members) to view Moirai’s Swindon operation? Full details please.

When did EDDC decide to end it’s preferred partner relationship with Moirai and why? please supply full reasons and dates with copies of reports and decisions .

Please explain what has changed, other than the passage of time, that necessitates a rethink on regeneration proposals.

Please ensure that the fullest details are given in response together with copies of all relevant paperwork, emails etc.”

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/payments_to_moirai_capital_inves

LEPs must be subject to Freedom of Information Act says media

“Local Enterprise Partnerships must be covered by local government transparency rules and the Freedom of Information Act “to prevent billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money being hidden from public scrutiny”, media organisations have argued.

The News Media Association, which represents the industry, said LEPs were set to receive £12bn in funding between 2015-16 and 2010-21 to invest in local projects and businesses.

However, it claimed that most LEPs tended to make only headline information available, “making it difficult for journalists and members of the public to scrutinise how investment decisions are being made”.

The NMA added that an examination of the organisations’ websites had revealed that only 15 of the 39 LEPs in England and Wales published registers on board members’ interests and only seven of the LEPs’ full-year reports included clear, comprehensive statements of income and expenditure including salaries.

“There were 19 LEPs that appear to publish either no breakdown of money in or out in their annual reports or filed either dormant or highly abbreviated accounts at Companies House,” the NMA said in a submission to a government consultation on local government transparency rules.

Lucy Gill, NMA legal, policy and regulatory affairs advisor, said: “LEPs wield immense power, making investment decisions worth billions of pounds to local communities, yet journalists have enormous difficulty getting hold of even basic information about how this money is being spent.

“As the role and resources of LEPs expands, there can no longer be any justification for excluding them from local government transparency standards and the Freedom of Information Act.”

Do EDDC consultants know how long their piece of string is?

Freedom of Information request on “What Do They Know” website:

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.

1) The Davis Langdon report to Cabinet of 17th July 2013 states the following:
“3.4.3 The current gross internal floor area totals some 7,722 m2, with the former Hotel providing 5,784 m2 and the Office Extensions 1,938m2.” http://eastdevon.gov.uk/media/1183866/ca…

This is also referred to in an earlier FOI Request, where you state:
“The floor space area was calculated by an independent consultant and cross-checked with the Display Energy Certificate (DEC).” https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/c…

2) The Valuation Office website states the following:
“Address of property: KNOWLE THE, STATION ROAD, SIDMOUTH, DEVON, EX10 8HL
“Total area: 4871.85 [sqm]”
http://www.2010.voa.gov.uk/rli/en/basic/…

I would be grateful if you could provide an explanation for the apparent discrepancy and provide me with evidence as to how the actual floor space at Knowle is calculated.

Thank you.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely,

Jeremy Woodward

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/total_floor_area_of_knowle

Lycamobile (one of the biggest donors to the Conservative Party: how do you get information on its UK business?

19 Lycamobile officials in France have been arrested in money laundering investigations.

Here is how ine UK person’s attempt to find out what goes on with the company in the UK went:

Dear National Crime Agency,

I note in recent revelations published by Buzzfeed news concerning Lycamobile, allegations that “the international telecoms group employs three cash couriers to drop rucksacks stuffed with hundreds of thousands of pounds twice a day at Post Offices scattered across London”. (See *)

Buzzfeed quote a statement by a former manager, “The services would be intangible – consulting or IT services, for example. It would all be billed to London.”

In Lycamobile UK’s most recent annual accounts (**), filed at Companies House… the auditors identify significant sums for which the audit records are inadequate, including “an amount of £134,133,856 owed by related parties for which the audit evidence available to us was limited because of the complex nature of the related party structure the company operators within”.

Given the involvement of UK banks, the use of intangible services in London to spend the money deposited by Lycamobile, and the qualifications to Lycamobile UK’s accounts, please could you disclose to me;

1) Confirm or deny the National Crime Agency are involved in the investigation into alleged international money laundering by Lycamobile in London. If not, please could you indicate who is?
2) Confirm or deny the co-operation of Barclays Bank with any investigation into money laundering via UK bank accounts
3) The number of corresponding arrests made in the UK

France’s Parquet National Financier;-

“On Wednesday and Thursday, 19 people suspected of being involved in a money-laundering system implicating Lycamobile and Lycamobile Services were arrested. The arrests were part of a Paris judicial investigation into money laundering and VAT fraud. Several places in Paris and its outskirts were raided and police seized about 130,000 euros in cash and 850,000 euros from bank accounts. Nine people were brought in front of a judge on Friday and charged with money laundering among other things, and eight were released on bail while one man was remanded in custody. The charges relate to money laundering of at least 17 million euros and VAT fraud of several million euros”.
Yours faithfully,

P. John”
* https://www.buzzfeed.com/heidiblake/the-…
** https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/compa…

And the reply was:

OFFICIAL

Dear P. John

Thank you for contacting the National Crime Agency (NCA).

NCA is not listed in Schedule 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, and as such is not obliged to respond to Freedom of Information requests. NCA is also not listed as a ‘Scottish Public Authority’ in the Freedom of Information (Scotland Act 2002).

Any information from, or relating to NCA has an absolute exemption from disclosure by other public authorities by virtue of Section 23 of the Act (as amended by the Crime and Courts Act 2013).

From time to time NCA will make limited information available on the web site http://www.nationalcrimeagency.gov.uk.

Whilst we will not respond to specific requests, we will consider written suggestions about information we may consider publishing in the future.

For more information about the Freedom of Information Act, please contact the Office of the Information Commissioner, or view their web site at http://www.ico.org.uk.

Yours sincerely

Public Information Compliance Unit
NCA”

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/lycamobile_3

If Plymouth has to say how much it sold its former HQ for, why is EDDC keeping us in the dark?

“The Civic Centre in Plymouth was sold to developers Urban Splash for £1, it has emerged.

Plymouth City Council confirmed that it received payment of £1 for the sale of the 14-storey local authority headquarters in the city centre. …

… The city council provided the £1 figure to David Every after a Freedom of Information inquiry. The council initially withheld the information, but finally reversed that decision this week.”

http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/Plymouth-s-Civic-Centre-sold-1/story-29385867-detail/story.html

Hinkley C: what happens to nuclear waste? We are not allowed to know

“A furious row has broken out after the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) refused to disclose the arrangement with EDF for dealing with radioactive waste at the planned Hinkley Point C nuclear plant.

The information commissioner’s office has turned down a freedom of information (FoI) request for state aid arrangements between the UK and the European commission to be made public.

The FoI complainant, David Lowry, has launched an appeal, claiming it is in the public interest for British citizens to be able to judge whether their government had made the right decision about the new reactors in Somerset.

Lowry, a British-based senior research fellow with the Institute for Resource and Security Studies in the US, said: “I do not believe the balance of judgment should be in favour of a foreign company, EDF Energy, who will potentially make huge multibillion-pound financial gain from the continued non-disclosure, and hence non scrutiny, over myself as a British tax and electricity bill payer.”

The government said that anyone building new reactors in Britain must manage and pay for the cost of handling waste products, unlike the existing situation where all radioactive materials are effectively dealt with through the public purse via the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority.

However, although the operator must agree to take responsibility for the spent fuel and other radioactive waste, the cost is expected to be passed on to the domestic electricity user through higher bills. …

… “If Hinkley is such a good deal, it should be no problem for the government to release the information to prove it. Their failure to do so leaves us to believe that their assumptions are correct – it’s a terrible deal for bill payers and they simply don’t know what to do with the nuclear waste.” …

http://gu.com/p/4jev8

Does EDDC know how much S106 money it has and how much is owed?

S106 money is that due to a town or parish where a developer has had to enter into an agreement to provide facilities or infrastructure to mitigate damage caused by a development.

This is the Freedom of Information request to East Devon District Council that reveals how little EDDC knows about how much money is still uncollected from S106 agreements. It should be noted that EDDC employed a S106 Officer and a Community Engagement officer for many years. Indeed, this is the convoluted procedure a town or parish has to go through to access its share of S106 contributions which mentions them by title:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/s106_agreement_monitoring_and_co#incoming-797580

and it states that the S106 officer knows how much money is available to each town and parish.

The request:

Dear Mr Metcalfe,

Thank you for your request for information. Please see our response to
your request below with supporting documentation attached.

This request concerns agreements made under Section 106 of the Town and
Country Planning Act 1990 (known as s106 agreements) particularly during
financial years 2014/2015 and 2015/2016 (to date) and compliance with
these s106 agreements.

1. How many s106 agreements were made by EDDC in each of the years stated above?

2011/12 – 170 registered agreements
2012/13 – 196
2013/14 – 297
2014/15 – 307

Please note that these are registered agreements and some are likely to
have been withdrawn, refused, or be resubmissions or supplemental agreements. Please see the attached spreadsheet for a breakdown of s106
agreements, where it’s been colour coded into financial years for ease of
reference.

2. What financial contributions were due to EDDC arising from s106
agreements in each of the years stated above?

We do not hold this information in a format which enables us to easily identify the financial contributions that were due to EDDC arising from s106 agreements in each financial year.

To find this detail we would need to check through each agreement during the stated time period. The attached list of each of the applications where a s106 agreement was registered can be searched online
here:
[1]http://eastdevon.gov.uk/planning/view-pl…

Simply enter the relevant application number into the search box and all
associated documents can then be accessed.

We estimate that to search through each of these agreements to locate the
ones specifically relevant to your request will take around 30 hours of
officer time. We know that it has taken an experienced officer some 6
hours to search through 200 of these documents and this is what we have
based our estimate on. This information is therefore exempt from
disclosure under s12 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

I am sorry that we cannot provide this information but hope that you will
find the application reference numbers helpful in conducting any searches
of your own. If you have any difficulties using the online search
facility, please let us know.

3. What financial contributions were received by EDDC for s106
agreements in each of the years stated above?

2014/15 – £2,464,737.56
2015/16 – £1,825,993.28.

4. In respect to monitoring of s106 agreements, how many agreements
have not been complied with in each of the years stated above? In cases
where there has been a breach of the obligation, how many direct actions
has EDDC taken to recover the payments due and expenses? –

This information is not held.

5. How much revenue for s106 agreements in total is now owing to EDDC
(regardless of what year the agreement was made) because payment has not
been made?

This information is not held.

If you are not satisfied with the way we have responded to your request,
please fill in our online complaint form[2]www.eastdevon.gov.uk/making_a_complaint or write to the Monitoring
Officer, EDDC, Knowle, Sidmouth, EX10 8HL.

Yours sincerely,

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/s106_agreement_monitoring_and_co#incoming-797580

A dictionary of (planning) doublespeak

A Dictionary of Doublespeak

accountability:
failure to account to and utter contempt for the public

affordable:
not affordable, beyond the reach of lower-income local people; of property snapped up by rental companies and second-home buyers

A.O.N.B.:
an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and therefore a place where luxury homes or industrial parks may be built (e.g. Shakespeare Cliff, Sidfields)

appeal:
a planning law allowing developers to overturn Local Authority planning refusals, Councils usually lacking the will and means to contest

Council House(obs):
a misguided post-war attempt to provide housing for social need; property to be sold off to landlords and to buy votes

democracy:
rule by the fortunate few for the fortunate few

devolution”
a scheme designed to by-pass local democracy by transferring power to self- selecting, unelected, unaccountable people with business interests

five-year land-supply:
a planning device that encourages developers to build on more green fields when they haven’t yet built on what they’ve got

flood plain:
land suitable for large-scale building developments

F.O.I.request:
Freedom of Information request – a system designed to delay, deny and obfuscate the truth, usually treated with contempt by Council Officers

green belt:
highly profitable land near large conurbations earmarked for development

Local Authority:
a soft touch for developers

localism:
a means of transferring local democracy to business associates

Local Plan:
an unintelligible, complicated process involving creative accounting in the calculation of job and housing forecasts, designed to ruin the countryside and cause distress to local communities

Neighbourhood Plan:
a plan involving much time and effort expended by local communities but carrying little or no weight when challenged by developers

N.P.P.F.(obscene):
National Planning Policy Framework, a planning system designed by developers for developers

Ombudsman:
an arbitrator without teeth, an irrelevance or charade

one-nation:
serving the interests of the rich at the expense of the poor and disabled (as in “one-nation compassionate Conservatism”)

Right-to-Buy:
a government scheme offering lucrative investment opportunities for landlords and developers to acquire social housing at taxpayers’ expense

sustainable:
definitely not sustainable; without infrastructure or local services; of land profitable for developers, especially on green fields (obscene, as in a presumption in favour of sustainable development)

transparency:
secrecy and obfuscation e.g. failure to produce, or doctoring of, minutes, failure to consult the public, etc

and if this amuses you, “definitions of numpties” on twitter might appeal:

https://mobile.twitter.com/omandprem/status/688698563690385408/photo/1

Councils must reveal names of councillors who fail to pay council tax on time

Yet again, it took a Freedom of Information request to get the information.

The judge said:

” ... disclosure of the identity of the councillor is necessary to achieve the objectives of transparency and accountability”.

So there.

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=26343:newspaper-wins-foi-appeal-over-names-of-councillors-who-failed-to-pay-council-tax&catid=59&Itemid=27

The irony: Ministers may have to use Freedom of Information requests to get Brexit information from their own staff!

Euorsceptic ministers may have to use a freedom of information requests or a parliamentary questions to obtain EU-related documents produced by their own staff, a top civil servant has said.

Sir Jeremy Heywood, Britain’s most senior civil servant, has been accused of stifling debate among eurosceptic ministers by issuing new guidance banning ministers from accessing official documents and receiving briefings ahead of the referendum.”

Another thing we all know about in East Devon, where ordinary Conservative councillors are not allowed to see documents prepared by their Cabinet and senior officers.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12178968/Eurosceptic-ministers-may-have-to-use-freedom-of-information-requests-to-obtain-EU-related-documents-produced-by-their-own-staff-latest.html

Perhaps at least some of those pesky FoI requests are coming from EDDC councillors!