08/11/2023
Ref: CAM6265
Dear Requester
Thank you for your request for information dated 17/10/2023 about survey of vehicles visiting Talacre Sports Centre. We have dealt with this under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Responses in bold
Response
The council holds some of the information requested. However we are withholding the information because it is exempt as explained below. We have explained where we are withholding information and what exemptions apply. Please see the refusal notices at the end of the answers which explain how and why they apply.
These FOI requests FOIA to FOID are related to the s106 obligations following the planning agreement for the Princes Park development between the Talacre Sports Centre and Prince of Wales Road. Many are follow ups to Cam4259 and Camden’s response dated 7.12.1922.
FOIA. Item #1 of cam4259 and Camden’s response read (FOI). Please inform me as to the evidence Camden has that the s106 agreement has and is being fulfilled with regards to marshalling and parking.
(Camden’s reply to above). An enforcement investigation remains open, following (sic) our letters regarding concerns about compliance with the relevant Section 106 heads of terms we have not received any further complaints about marshalling and parking. However our investigation remains open as we have not received evidence that the full terms are being complied with.
Please advise what responses Camden has since received to its letters regarding compliance with the Section 106 terms. We were informed that letters were sent to owners on 29.3.22, 11.5.22 and 8.11.22.
Given that there is no evidence today (Oct 2023) that the s106 obligation to provide marshals is being (or ever has been} obeyed, please advise what action will be taken and when.
As already stated in CAM4259, an enforcement investigation remains open and so we are not able to provide any information on this case. This is exempt under Section 42(1) of the Freedom of Information Act. See the refusal notice below.
FOIB. The developer was required and did provide £1.1m as security for the s106 obligations.
That amount was referred to in my earlier FOI and Camden replied to my related question that it had then increased to £1,170,662.12. Should this sum not be used for the purpose for which it was intended?
This is not a valid question under the Freedom of Information Act as you are asking for an opinion and not recorded information.
FOIC. The marshalling obligations were created in order to reduce the negative impact (for all time) on the Sports Centre of the partial closing to Dalby Street. The need for marshalling arises inter alia from the legal requirement for minors to be escorted by adults from and to the entrance of the building to and from responsible adults in the building. A car driven to the entrance will risk being ticketed if left unoccupied while a minor is delivered or collected safely.
A minor, risks being lost or kidnapped if not escorted. Please advise whether I am correct in how I have described Camden’s legal obligation and if so, how Camden fulfils it at present. (For much about the requirement and purpose of marshals, see AP19).
This is not a valid question under the Freedom of Information Act as you are asking for an opinion and not recorded information.
FOID
In Cam4259 my request for details as to who is responsible for s106 obligations received your response “The S106 is a charge on the land and those with a legal interest in the site are potentially responsible for ensuring any compliance with the legal agreement depending on the obligation. The owner as defined within the S106 is the freehold owner. The S106 can be viewed online here.” I wish for a more precise response, particularly as applies to the obligation to provide ie fund marshals for defined minimum times of each day. Please include whether these are responsible (I am not certain of the precise figures but the questions remain).
(a) Owners of private flats who are described as owning freeholds. When I carried out a land registry search in 2021 these 6 flats were shown as freeholds (999 years) - #6.19.25,27. 28. 29. One interpretation of your above response is that these are the only ones who are responsible and (b) etc below are not. Is that correct or does “freehold” have a different meaning?
(b) Owners of private flats who are described as owning leaseholds. When I did a land registry search in 2021, the remaining private flats were shown as leasehold ie 125 years
(c) The Council or similar as owners of the “affordable” public sector flats.
(d) Any other individual or institution.
This is not a valid question under the Freedom of Information Act as you are asking for an opinion and not recorded information. In addition the information is not held in the recorded format.
Refusal Notice:
Section 42(1): Legal Professional Privilege
This information is exempt under Section 42(1) of the Freedom of Information Act because it is protected by Legal Professional Privilege (LPP). LPP covers communications between lawyers and their clients for obtaining legal advice, or documents created by or for lawyers for the main purpose of litigation. Section 42 ensures that the confidential relationship between lawyer and client is protected, ensures openness between them, and safeguards access to fully informed, realistic, and frank legal advice. The information withheld is covered by this exemption because of an ongoing investigation.
The exemption is qualified and so is subject to a public interest test.
The public interest arguments for releasing this information are as follows:
• It would improve the transparency of the decision-making process
• It will allow the council’s decisions to be examined and held to account
The public interest arguments for withholding the information are as follows:
• There is very strong inherent public interest in maintaining LPP and allowing the council to take legal advice and prepare for litigation in a confidential way
• Disclosure of the legal advice could prejudice the Council’s ability to defend or prosecute its legal interests, by unfairly exposing its legal position to challenge, or by disclosing its approach to and tactics in legal areas.
The council has concluded that the public interest in withholding the information outweighs the public interest in disclosing it.
We considered whether the presumption in favour of disclosure in the regulations overrides the decision to withhold and have concluded that it does not.
Advice and Assistance:
If you wish to contact Elizabeth Beaumont, Appeals and Enforcement Manager, at elizabeth.beaumont@camden.gov.uk, then we are happy to provide you with an update directly and not through the Freedom of Information route, when we have decided what the most appropriate course of action should be. However she is only able to provide an update at that point and not answer any other questions or offer advice.
This is the 5th time you have made a request on this subject since August 2022. The previous cases
were:
24/08/2022 CAM3848
17/11/2022 CAM4259
22/03/2023 CAM4962
02/05/2023 CAM5198
The team involved have spent a large amount of time dealing with your request, which is a small situation that does not affect many people within the borough, or the general services that the council provides to the wider population of the borough, and so we are likely to refuse any further Freedom of Information requests from you on this subject under Section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
Further Information:
We do not give our consent for any names and contact details provided in this response to be sent marketing material. Any such use will be reported to the ICO as a breach of General Data Protection Regulations and the Privacy and Electronic Communication Regulations.
Why not check our Portal Open Data Camden before making a new request as your question may already be answered by a previous FOI response or in one of our many useful and interesting datasets.
Your Rights
If you are not happy with how your response was handled you can request an Internal Review within 2 months of this letter by email to foireviews@camden.gov.uk or post: Information and Records Management Team, London Borough of Camden, Town Hall, Judd Street, London WC1H
9JE. Please quote your case reference number. If you are not satisfied with the Internal Review outcome you can complain to the Information Commissioner’s Office at casework@ico.org.uk telephone 0303 123 1113, or post to Information Commissioner’s Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF. The ICO website www.ico.org.uk may be useful.
Yours sincerely
Philip Lewis
Information Rights Officer
London Borough of Camden Information and Records Management
Judd Street London. WC1H 9JE
e-mail: foi@camden.gov.u
Dear Requester,
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000 and ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REGULATIONS 2004 – request for information. Ref: CAM6265
Thank you for your request dated 17 Oct 2023. We are dealing with it under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the Environmental Information Regulations 2004.
You will receive a response by 14 Nov 2023 which is 20 working days (from the day after the request is received) as defined by the Act and Regulations.
Please check your spam folder in case our response may arrive there.
If we need to ask you to clarify your request we will contact you. If we do ask for clarification and you don’t provide it your request will lapse, so please read carefully any correspondence we send you about your request.
We will provide information electronically where possible. If you need an alternative format e.g. large print etc. please let me know.
There may be a fee payable for this information. We will let you know if this is the case and explain how to pay it and what your options are.
If you have any queries or concerns, please contact me at FOI@camden.gov.uk. Please do not reply to this email as it is no-reply.
We do not give our consent for any names and contact details provided to be sent marketing material. Any such use will be reported to the ICO as a breach of General Data Protection Regulation and the Privacy and Electronic Communication Regulations.
Further information is also available from the Information Commissioner’s Office at https://ico.org.uk/, telephone 0303 123 1113, Email: icocasework@ico.org.uk.
Yours sincerely,
Philip Lewis
Information Rights Officer
Dear Nick Harding
Your case reference is CAM6265
Thank you for your enquiry. It is being looked at, we will be in touch with you soon.
Yours sincerely
Camden Council
Dear Mr Lewis
These FOI requests FOIA to FOID are related to the s106 obligations following the planning agreement for the Princes Park development between the Talacre Sports Centre and Prince of Wales Road. Many are follow ups to Cam4259 and Camden’s response dated 7.12.1922.
FOIA. Item #1 of cam4259 and Camden’s response read
(FOI). Please inform me as to the evidence Camden has that the s106 agreement has and is being fulfilled with regards to marshalling and parking.
(Camden’s reply to above). An enforcement investigation remains open, following (sic) our letters regarding concerns about compliance with the relevant Section 106 heads of terms we have not received any further complaints about marshalling and parking. However our investigation remains open as we have not received evidence that the full terms are being complied with.
Please advise what responses Camden has since received to its letters regarding compliance with the Section 106 terms. We were informed that letters were sent to owners on 29.3.22, 11.5.22 and 8.11.22.
Given that there is no evidence today (Oct 2023) that the s106 obligation to provide marshals is being (or ever has been} obeyed, please advise what action will be taken and when.
FOIB. The developer was required and did provide £1.1m as security for the s106 obligations. That amount was referred to in my earlier FOI and Camden replied to my related question that it had then increased to £1,170,662.12. Should this sum not be used for the purpose for which it was intended?
FOIC. The marshalling obligations were created in order to reduce the negative impact (for all time) on the Sports Centre of the partial closing to Dalby Street. The need for marshalling arises inter alia from the legal requirement for minors to be escorted by adults from and to the entrance of the building to and from responsible adults in the building. A car driven to the entrance will risk being ticketed if left unoccupied while a minor is delivered or collected safely. A minor, risks being lost or kidnapped if not escorted. Please advise whether I am correct in how I have described Camden’s legal obligation and if so, how Camden fulfils it at present. (For much about the requirement and purpose of marshals, see AP19).
FOID
In Cam4259 my request for details as to who is responsible for s106 obligations received your response “The S106 is a charge on the land and those with a legal interest in the site are potentially responsible for ensuring any compliance with the legal agreement depending on the obligation. The owner as defined within the S106 is the freehold owner. The S106 can be viewed online here.” I wish for a more precise response, particularly as applies to the obligation to provide ie fund marshals for defined minimum times of each day. Please include whether these are responsible (I am not certain of the precise figures but the questions remain).
(a) Owners of private flats who are described as owning freeholds. When I carried out a land registry search in 2021 these 6 flats were shown as freeholds (999 years) - #6.19.25,27. 28. 29. One interpretation of your above response is that these are the only ones who are responsible and (b) etc below are not. Is that correct or does “freehold” have a different meaning?
(b) Owners of private flats who are described as owning leaseholds. When I did a land registry search in 2021, the remaining private flats were shown as leasehold ie 125 years
(c) The Council or similar as owners of the “affordable” public sector flats.
(d) Any other individual or institution.
Yours
Nick
Nick Harding
1 St Ann's Gardens
London NW5 4ER
020 7485 9397
0780 180 2344
Dear Mr Harding,
Please find attached the Borough Solicitor’s response to your Internal Review. I apologise that this is late, and for any inconvenience this may have caused you.
Yours,
Sarah Laws
Data Protection Manager
Dear Mr Harding,
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000 CAM4962
Thank you for your request for an Internal Review into your case. I am sorry that you were unhappy with
the council’s response. I have undertaken the Internal Review and will deal with your substantive points
in turn after I have addressed a preliminary matter.
I note that the response provided did not function well as a standalone document as to be fully
comprehensible it needed to be read in conjunction with the response to your previous request. I have
reminded the Information Rights Officers of the need to ensure that responses can be read and
understood as a single document which may require some request preamble or editing to aid clarity for a
reader unfamiliar with the background to the matter.
Your first point was that “My FOI request made no mention of whether or not any “complaint” had been
received by Camden, yet the response spoke as if it did. The response said nothing on the subject of
enforcement of the s106 obligations especially regarding marshalling which was the topic of the FOI
request.” My conclusion is that regrettably this was poor wording in the response. The response
intended to explain that there is no current enforcement over parking and marshalling as no further
complaints have been received, but that enforcement is being considered regarding the paving stones (as
per q2). Whilst this could be inferred from the response it could have been clearer. Your Internal Review
on this point is therefore upheld.
Your second point was that the “response lacks clarity as to who is responsible for the s106 obligations...
What is meant by Freeholder? Is it just those to whom I referred earlier who own flats similarly to the
other flat owners who have leaseholds?...” The Freedom of Information Act 2000 requires the council
provide the written information we hold, which is what we have done. It does not require us to provide
detailed explanations where this is not held by us. We do have a duty under s16 to provide advice and
assistance to requesters, but this requirement does not extend to provide detailed legal advice about the
definition of technical terms. My view is that we provided the recorded information held and provided
the explanation we reasonably could together with the link to the land registry site to enable you look up
the current leaseholders. My conclusion is that this part of the response was correct, your Internal
Review of this part is not upheld, and you might like to seek legal advice on the technical definition of
these terms.
Overall, therefore your Internal Review is partly upheld.
Law & Governance
London Borough of Camden
Town Hall
Judd Street
London, WC1H 9JE
www.camden.gov.uk
Your rights
If you are not satisfied with how your review was handled you can contact the Information Commissioner,
without charge, within three months at the Information Commissioner’s Office. Telephone: 0303 123
1113 , live chat https://ico.org.uk/global/contact-us/live-chat/ or webform
https://ico.org.uk/global/contact-us/
Yours sincerely
Andrew Maughan
Borough Solicitor
Dear Mr Harding
I can but apologise. The delay is entirely my fault, partly due to leave, staff holidays and an unexpected work surge. I appreciate this is not the level of service you would expect, or indeed that I would consider acceptable from myself.
I am looking into this urgently and will be back in touch as soon as I can.
Yours,
Sarah
Sarah Laws
Data Protection Manager
Dear Mr Harding
I confirm that your email was received into the Internal Reviews inbox and Sarah will look into it.
Regards
Philip Lewis
Information Rights Officer
Law and Governance
Corporate Services
London Borough of Camden
6 August 2023 to Sarah Laws
Dear Ms Laws
Reference no Cam4962
I refer to my request for an Internal Review of my FOI which you acknowledged on 9th June saying “Thank you for this, I suspect the original didn’t get through to us, but this and one on the next day did. I have logged it and you will get a reply in the next couple of weeks or so”.
That suggests, I should have expected a reply around 23rd June which is some time ago so I would be grateful for at least an update of the present situation.
I am sending Philip Lewis a copy of this since he enquired whether I had heard anything earlier and I copied him yours to me of 9th June.
Yours truly
Nick Harding
For the attention of Philip Lewis
Dear Mr Lewis
Reference no Cam4962 and my request for a review of the FOI reply
I am forwarding here an email to Sarah Laws and shall be grateful if you will help to get it responded to if she is unable to respond. You may recall that we corresponded earlier.
Yours truly
Nick Harding
16 July 2023 to philip lewis
Dear Mr Lewis
Thank you for yours of the 12 July 2023.
I did receive this acknowledgement, dated 9th June from Sarah Lawes but nothing since so I was wondering whether to chase it up-
"DEAR MR HARDING
Thank you for this, I suspect the original didn’t get through to us, but this and one on the next day did. I have logged it and you will get a reply in the next couple of weeks or so.
Yours
Sarah Laws
Data Protection Manager"
While writing, it occurs to me that you may not have seen a copy of what follows which I sentt to Angela Ryan on 6th June 2023 which mentions you though is not an FOI request - hopefully helpful, albeit lengthy!
Dear Mr Harding
I am writing to you to acknowledge your internal review request. I apologise that this acknowledgement is late, however as the Information Rights Manager is currently away, I am not sure if you have received an acknowledgement yet or not.
We will look into your case and respond to your internal review request as soon as possible.
Yours sincerely
Philip Lewis
Information Rights Officer
Dear Mr Harding
Thank you for this, I suspect the original didn’t get through to us, but this and one on the next day did. I have logged it and you will get a reply in the next couple of weeks or so.
Yours
Sarah Laws
Data Protection Manager
I HAVE INTENDED TO SEND THIS BEFORE BUT CANNOT BE SURE IT ACTUALLY WENT SO AM RESENDING
I REFER TO THE ABOVE AND REQUEST A REVIEW IN THE LIGHT OF THE FOLLOWING-
a. My FOI request made no mention of whether or not any “complaint” had been received by Camden yet the response spoke as if it did. The response said nothing on the subject of enforcement of the s106 obligations especially regarding marshalling which was the topic of the FOI request.
b. The response lacks clarity as to who is responsible for the s106 obligations.
The reply says it is “Enforceable against any person deriving title to any part of the property from the owner and insofar as it is not a planning obligation its provision may be enforceable by the Council under any relevant statutory powers. This includes all those with a freeholder and leasehold information on the building. This can be obtained using the map search here and entering the postcode.
Surely in responding to a layman like me, Camden should be more explicit eg with regards to the text in red above. Owner has changed frequently, earlier being, for example, Cornwall Overseas Developments, Hazlewood Properties Ltd, Trac Properties Ltd and many more. What is meant by Freeholder? Is it just those to whom I referred earlier who own flats similarly to the other flat owners who have leaseholds? CAM4259 said “The Owner is defined within the S106 as the Freehold Owner”. It also said that “the Council has sent letters to the Freeholder (those who have land reg title)”.
Perhaps the simplest question would be to ask who Camden would be entitled to sue if and when it chose to sue for the marshalling obligations arising under the s106 agreement?
Yours sincerely
Nick Harding
--
Nick Harding
1 St Ann's Gardens
London NW5 4ER
020 7485 9397
0780 180 2344
Date: 23/05/2023
Ref: CAM5198
Dear Requester
Thank you for your request for information dated 02/05/2023 about survey of vehicles visiting Talacre Sports Centre. We have dealt with this under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
Response
The council holds some of the information requested.
1. Given the FOI responses Cam3438 and Cam4259 and Cam4962 which stated that the marshalling etc obligations between the Prince of Wales Road and Talacre Sports Centre had not been fulfilled by the responsible body or bodies, please inform me when the “Cash Deposit” will be used as intended.
I am referring to the Supplementary S106 Agreement dated 30 September 2008, p4, Section 2.8 “the Cash Deposit” defined as ”the sum to be paid by the Owner as a cash deposit under this Agreement being for the sum of £1,100,000 (one million one hundred thousand pounds) to act as security for the Council in respect of securing the Paramount Objective and the Owner’s obligations in respect of this Agreement”
The Council currently has no recorded information about this as a decision has not yet been made.
We are aware that there are some environmental issues in connection with this site and are seeking legal advice on potential remedy options.
2. Please confirm that this Deposit is held by Camden and, given interest earned since the original deposit, how much it has become.
We hold the bond to which you refer and the amount with interest is £1,170,662.12
Further Information:
We do not give our consent for any names and contact details provided in this response to be sent marketing material. Any such use will be reported to the ICO as a breach of General Data Protection Regulations and the Privacy and Electronic Communication Regulations.
Why not check our Portal Open Data Camden before making a new request as your question may already be answered by a previous FOI response or in one of our many useful and interesting datasets.
London Borough of Camden
Information and Records Management
Judd Street
London.WC1H 9JE
e-mail:foi@camden.gov.uk
Your Rights
If you are not happy with how your response was handled you can request an Internal Review
within 2 months of this letter by email to foireviews@camden.gov.uk or post: Information and
Records Management Team, London Borough of Camden, Town Hall, Judd Street, London WC1H 9JE. Please quote your case reference number. If you are not satisfied with the Internal Review outcome you can complain to the Information Commissioner’s Office at casework@ico.org.uk telephone 0303 123 1113, or post to Information Commissioner’s Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF. The ICO website www.ico.org.uk may be useful.
Yours sincerely
Philip Lewis
Information Rights Officer
Dear Sirs
1. Given the FOI responses Cam3438 and Cam4259 and Cam4962 which stated that the marshalling etc obligations between the Prince of Wales Road and Talacre Sports Centre had not been fulfilled by the responsible body or bodies, please inform me when the “Cash Deposit” will be used as intended.
I am referring to the Supplementary S106 Agreement dated 30 September 2008, p4, Section 2.8 “the Cash Deposit” defined as ”the sum to be paid by the Owner as a cash deposit under this Agreement being for the sum of £1,100,000 (one million one hundred thousand pounds) to act as security for the Council in respect of securing the Paramount Objective and the Owner’s obligations in respect of this Agreement”
2. Please confirm that this Deposit is held by Camden and, given interest earned since the original deposit, how much it has become.
Yours sincerely
Nick Harding
I refer to the above and request a review in the light of the following-
a. My FOI request made no mention of whether or not any “complaint” had been received by Camden yet the response spoke as if it did. The response said nothing on the subject of enforcement of the s106 obligations especially regarding marshalling which was the topic of the FOI request.
b. The response lacks clarity as to who is responsible for the s106 obligations.
The reply says it is “Enforceable against any person deriving title to any part of the property from the owner and insofar as it is not a planning obligation its provision may be enforceable by the Council under any relevant statutory powers. This includes all those with a freeholder and leasehold information on the building. This can be obtained using the map search here and entering the postcode.
Surely in responding to a layman like me, Camden should be more explicit eg with regards to the text in red above. Owner has changed frequently, earlier being, for example, Cornwall Overseas Developments, Hazlewood Properties Ltd, Trac Properties Ltd and many more. What is meant by Freeholder? Is it just those to whom I referred earlier who own flats similarly to the other flat owners who have leaseholds? CAM4259 said “The Owner is defined within the S106 as the Freehold Owner”. It also said that “the Council has sent letters to the Freeholder (those who have land reg title)”.
Perhaps the simplest question would be to ask who Camden would be entitled to sue if and when it chose to sue for the marshalling obligations arising under the s106 agreement?
Yours sincerely
Nick Harding
Date: 04/04/2023
Ref.CAM44962
Dear Requester
Thank you for your request for information dated 22/03/2023 about survey of vehicles visiting Talacre Sports Centre. We have dealt with this under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
Response
The council holds the information requested.
Foi request following FOI Response of 7.12.22, CAM 4259 I refer to the above and any relevant earlier correspondence and shall be grateful for the following information
1. What further requests Camden has made following those dated 29/03/2022, 11/05/2022, & 08/11/2022 referred to by you in your response of 7.12.22?
We have not received any further complaints in respect to the car parking issue since last year (residents/users parking in disabled bay and parking hazard when centre is used as its busiest times). On that basis no further action is to be taken in relation to this issue.
The only issue we are currently looking into is the condition of the paving stones.
2. What action Camden has taken or propose to take in the light of responses referred to in 1 above or should there have continued to have been no responses.
At this stage only enforcement action is being taken in relation to the paving stones.
3. Inform me as to which flat-owners and others are liable for the s106 obligations. I have always understood that it is anyone “with an interest in the land” which I have always understood it to include all leaseholders as well as freeholders. However, your response seems to imply that it is freeholders only. Your link leads to numerous files and I cannot readily find the definition of freehold, should it be important.
The S106 is enforceable against any person deriving title to any part of the property from the owner and insofar as it is not a planning obligation its provision may be enforceable by the Council under any relevant statutory powers. This includes all those with a freeholder and leasehold information on the building. This can be obtained using the map search here and entering the postcode.
We understand that the flat properties include 1-19 Princes Park Apartments North, and Flats 1-29 Princes Park Apartments South.
As the information requested is already reasonably accessible elsewhere it is exempt under the absolute exemption in Section 21. London Borough of Camden Information and Records Management Judd Street London. WC1H 9JE e-mail: foi@camden.gov.uk
4. In case this helps-.
a. I have been close to this project near its start (since I saw many features that I saw as deeply unsatisfactory).
b. Before I retired 20 years ago, I had worked on the finance side for the largest UK construction company (15 years) and one of the larger UK consultant engineers (13 years) both of whom had major overseas interests. The Talacre developer (Findon) was from overseas.
c. Findon told me that they had allowed some of the buyers to buy freehold (though they put the flats on the market, leasehold), on the grounds that foreigners didn’t always understand leasehold in this country.
d. I carried out a Land Registry search on 23.8.21 and found that flats not 125 years leasehold included these private flats 1, 6, 19. 25, 26, 27 which were each for 999 years.
e. Throughout the time I have followed this project I have maintained this web site “Talacrefacts” in the hope it would be helpful to those requiring information. I am not, of course, able to be certain of its completeness or accuracy, but it should be helpful to many. I also have another site which is less suitable for public availability.
Further Information ..:
We do not give our consent for any names and contact details provided in this response to be sent marketing material. Any such use will be reported to the ICO as a breach of General Data Protection Regulations and the Privacy and Electronic Communication Regulations.
Why not check our Portal Open Data Camden before making a new request as your question may already be answered by a previous FOI response or in one of our many useful and interesting datasets.
Your Rights
If you are not happy with how your response was handled you can request an Internal Review within 2 months of this letter by email to foireviews@camden.gov.uk or post: Information and Records Management Team, London Borough of Camden, Town Hall, Judd Street, London WC1H 9JE. Please quote your case reference number. If you are not satisfied with the Internal Review outcome you can complain to the Information Commissioner’s Office at casework@ico.org.uk telephone 0303 123 1113, or post to Information Commissioner’s Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF. The ICO website www.ico.org.uk may be useful.
Yours sincerely
Philip Lewis
Information Rights Officer
Date 7.12.22
CAM 4259
Dear Requester
Thank you for your request for information dated 17/11/2022 about survey of vehicles visiting
Talacre Sports Centre. We have dealt with this under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
Response
The council holds the information requested. The answers to your questions are below.
This follows the response given to my Freedom of Information Request CAM3438 of 24.8.22 replied to on 20.9.22 by Philip Lewis
1. Please inform me as to the evidence Camden has that the s106 agreement has and is being fulfilled with regards to marshalling and parking.
An enforcement investigation remains open, following our letters regarding concerns about compliance with the relevant Section 106 heads of terms we have not received any further complaints about marshalling and parking. However our investigation remains open as we have not received evidence that the full terms are being complied with.
2. Please inform me as to who is liable in the event of these obligations not being fulfilled. Our understanding is that it is, as was stated in the response to FOI 3438 enforceable against the person entering into the obligation and any person deriving title from them with an interest in the land (my stress). Am I correct in saying that this includes all present freeholders and leaseholders
[I can provide if it is of any help, lists I have made over the years of freeholders and leaseholders. Also details of information sent to them and others drawing attention to the s106 agreement and the potential liabilities arising from it]
The S106 is a charge on the land and those with a legal interest in the site are potentially responsible for ensuring any compliance with the legal agreement depending on the obligation. The owner as defined within the S106 is the freehold owner. The S106 can be viewed online here. [I can provide if it is of any help, lists I have made over the years of freeholders and
leaseholders. Also details of information sent to them and others drawing attention to the s106
agreement and the potential liabilities arising from it]
The S106 is a charge on the land and those with a legal interest in the site are potentially
responsible for ensuring any compliance with the legal agreement depending on the
obligation. The owner as defined within the S106 is the freehold owner. The S106 can be viewed
online here. [I can provide if it is of any help, lists I have made over the years of freeholders and
leaseholders. Also details of information sent to them and others drawing attention to the s106
agreement and the potential liabilities arising from it]
The S106 is a charge on the land and those with a legal interest in the site are potentially
responsible for ensuring any compliance with the legal agreement depending on the
obligation. The owner as defined within the S106 is the freehold owner. The S106 can be viewed online here.
3. If I am correct in my above assumptions, please inform me of the steps Camden has taken to (a) warn the freeholders and leaseholders of their potential liabilities and/or (b) enforce these obligations and/or (c) alert local Estate Agents of the liabilities which any buyer would inherit on purchase of a property
The Council has sent letters to the Freeholder (those on land reg title) on 29/03/2022, 11/05/2022, & 08/11/2022 and have received no response to date. The S106 Legal is a charge on the land so all new purchasers of the property should be made aware should the correct checks be undertaken.
London Borough of Camden
Information and Records
Management
Judd Street
London.
WC1H 9JE
e-mail:
foi@camden.gov.uk
Further Information:
We do not give our consent for any names and contact details provided in this response to be sent marketing material. Any such use will be reported to the ICO as a breach of General Data Protection Regulations and the Privacy and Electronic Communication Regulations.
Why not check our Portal Open Data Camden before making a new request as your question may already be answered by a previous FOI response or in one of our many useful and interesting datasets.
Your Rights
If you are not happy with how your response was handled you can request an Internal Review within 2 months of this letter by email to foireviews@camden.gov.uk or post: Information and Records Management Team, London Borough of Camden, Town Hall, Judd Street, London WC1H 9JE. Please quote your case reference number. If you are not satisfied with the Internal Review outcome you can complain to the Information Commissioner’s Office at casework@ico.org.uk telephone 0303 123 1113, or post to Information Commissioner’s Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF. The ICO website www.ico.org.uk may be useful.
Yours sincerely
Philip Lewis
Information Rights Officer
Dear Requester
Thank you for your recent request. Your response is attached.
We publish our responses on our Open Data Portal, you will be able to see your response and others back to August 2017 here, although there is a small lag before publication.
Thank you for your interest in Camden council
Yours sincerely,
Philip Lewis
Information Rights Officer
Dear Requester
Thank you for your request for information dated 24/08/2022 about survey of vehicles visiting Talacre Sports Centre. We have dealt with this under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
Response
The council holds the information requested. The answers to your questions are below.
Citidwell. an associate company of Findon, the developer on the Talacre project site, carried out a survey of vehicles visiting the Sports Centre between 10 to 17th October 2014, shown below https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnx0YWxhY3JlbG9 nc3xneDozZGRhMzlhMWE0MWI1MTk4
I seek the following information
1. Was this survey requested by Camden?
We have been unable to confirm whether this survey was requested by the planning department. The report is dated 2014 and there was no planning application being determined at that time, or an enforcement investigation in relation to the number of vehicles. It could have been prepared as part of the monitoring required within the S106.
2. If the answer to 1 is yes, was Camden aware at the time of Citidwell's connection to Findon? N/A.
3. Did Camden include the survey in its decision to allow the developer/owner of the flats to ignore the obligations in the s106 agreement which requires marshal(s) to be on duty from one hour before the sports centre opens to one hour after it closes?
An enforcement investigation reference was opened in March 2022 to look into concerns that the Traffic Marshalling Brief secured via a S106 legal agreement was not been adhered to in relation to a marshal being present. Subsequent visits have been made to monitor compliance and letters have been sent to the freeholder. The enforcement investigation remains open.
4. What measures are in place to ensure that the terms of the s106 agreement are fulfilled? S106(5) provides that “[a] restriction or requirement imposed under a planning obligation is enforceable by injunction”. Pursuant to s106(3), a s106 obligation is enforceable by the local planning authority that is identified in the obligation. It is enforceable against the person entering into the obligation and any person deriving title from them, unless the s106 obligation itself provides that a person shall not be bound in respect of any period during which they no longer have an interest in the land.
Our enforcement investigation remains open into concerns about parking on the site. If residents have any concerns they can email Angela Ryan, the Principal Enforcement Officer dealing with this case at angela.ryan@camden.gov.uk.
Further Information:
We do not give our consent for any names and contact details provided in this response to be sent marketing material. Any such use will be reported to the ICO as a breach of General Data Protection Regulations and the Privacy and Electronic Communication Regulations.
Why not check our Portal Open Data Camden before making a new request as your question may already be answered by a previous FOI response or in one of our many useful and interesting datasets.
Your Rights
If you are not happy with how your response was handled you can request an Internal Review within 2 months of this letter by email to foireviews@camden.gov.uk or post: Information and Records Management Team, London Borough of Camden, Town Hall, Judd Street, London WC1H 9JE. Please quote your case reference number. If you are not satisfied with the Internal Review outcome you can complain to the Information Commissioner’s Office at casework@ico.org.uk telephone 0303 123 1113, or post to Information Commissioner’s Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF. The ICO website www.ico.org.uk may be useful.
Yours sincerely
Philip Lewis
Information Rights Officer
Dear Requester,
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000 and ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REGULATIONS 2004 – request for information. Ref: CAM3848
Thank you for your request dated 24 Aug 2022. We are dealing with it under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the Environmental Information Regulations 2004.
You will receive a response by 22 Sep 2022 which is 20 working days (from the day after the request is received) as defined by the Act and Regulations.
Please check your spam folder in case our response may arrive there.
If we need to ask you to clarify your request we will contact you. If we do ask for clarification and you don’t provide it your request will lapse, so please read carefully any correspondence we send you about your request.
We will provide information electronically where possible. If you need an alternative format e.g. large print etc. please let me know.
There may be a fee payable for this information. We will let you know if this is the case and explain how to pay it and what your options are.
If you have any queries or concerns, please contact me at FOI@camden.gov.uk. Please do not reply to this email as it is no-reply.
We do not give our consent for any names and contact details provided to be sent marketing material. Any such use will be reported to the ICO as a breach of General Data Protection Regulation and the Privacy and Electronic Communication Regulations.
Further information is also available from the Information Commissioner’s Office at www.ico.org.uk, telephone 0303 123 1113, Email: casework@ico.org.uk.
Yours sincerely,
Philip Lewis
Information Rights Officer
Dear Requester
Thank you for your request for information dated 26/01/2021 about the Prince’s Park development ‘overage’. We have dealt with this under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004
Response
The council holds some of the information requested. The answers to your questions are below. We have stated where we do not hold the information requested and why.
Thank you for the clarification you have provided, and the comments you have made in the preamble to your FOI request are noted.
From what Legal Services said previously, their view is that the Second Property Contract does exist, but such is in fact the 19.04.2005 agreement and the definition of the Second Property Contract in the TRAC / Cornwall transfer is incorrect. Such definition should read: “the conditional agreement for sale dated 19 April 2005 made between London Borough of Camden (1) and the Transferor (2).” There is no property agreement between those two parties dated 10th January 2006.
As to the three questions you have raised
1. Please inform me as to any efforts made by the Council to ensure that the owners of the Prince’s Park development withdrew the references on the Land Registry site to a “Second Property Contract” between Trac Properties Ltd and Camden dated 10th January 2006.
The Council has not taken steps to withdraw the references. As previously mentioned, the Council was not a party to the TR1, which contains the reference to a "Second Property Contract" nor is there any legal or even general obligation or duty on the Council to seek to withdraw the references.
2. Please inform me as to whether such references have been withdrawn.
As far as the Council is aware, the references have not been withdrawn
3. In the event that either Camden is aware that they have not been withdrawn or Camden does not know (in which case it is aware of the potential conflict that could arise), please inform me as to what steps Camden is taking or intends to take to remedy the situation.
We do not hold this information . The purpose of a FOI enquiry is a request for recorded information, and not to make enquiries as to its future plans and intentions. This request is not seeking recorded information, and raises a matter which is not really the topic for a FOI request (which under the legislation are a channel for seeking information held by the Council and not a platform for engaging in a general debate as to possible actions a Council might take in relation to a matter).
Further Information
We do not give our consent for any names and contact details provided in this response to be sent marketing material. Any such use will be reported to the ICO as a breach of General Data Protection Regulations and the Privacy and Electronic Communication Regulations.
Why not check our Portal Open Data Camden before making a new request as your question may already be answered by a previous FOI response or in one of our many useful and interesting datasets.
Your Rights
If you are not happy with how your response was handled you can request an Internal Review within 2 months of this letter by email to foireviews@camden.gov.uk or post: Information and Records Management Team, London Borough of Camden, Town Hall, Judd Street, London WC1H 9JE. Please quote your case reference number. If you are not satisfied with the Internal Review outcome you can complain to the Information Commissioner’s Office at casework@ico.org.uk telephone 0303 123 1113, or post to Information Commissioner’s Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF. The ICO website www.ico.org.uk may be useful.
Yours sincerely,
Peter Williams Information Rights Officer
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000 and ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REGULATIONS 2004 – request for information. Ref: CAM1087
Thank you for your request dated 26 Jan 2021. We are dealing with it under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the Environmental Information Regulations 2004.
You will receive a response by 23 Feb 2021 which is 20 working days (from the day after the request is received) as defined by the Act and Regulations.
[standard small print]
Camden officer requested NJH's resent with link changed to attachment due to cybercrime. Resent without link as relevant documents are attachments on original Foi request. Reply received that officer out until 28.1.21
Dear Sirs
Response to FOI reply of 19.1.21. Case Reference: CAM855
I acknowledge receipt of yours of 19.1.21 which contained a refusal notice (or notices, its unclear if there is a typo in your second para) on the grounds that the request is formulated in too general a manner and Camden has complied with a regulation because it is required to ask for more particulars. Further, that you are unclear what I was requesting and/or my request includes a request for information on the Council’s future plans and intentions. You seem not to know what I meant by “the references” and “withdrawing”. You then go on to say that “since the Second Property Contract is only mentioned in documents to which the Council is not a party, it cannot ensure that any changes are made in such documents by the parties to such documents”.
I found the latter assertion very curious until it occurred to me that you may have misunderstood my meaning (although from the later contribution made by the legal department, it was clear to them). The Land Registry document TR1 dated 5.9.2008 shown as an "Official Copy", filed by someone other than Camden, contains these words:-
"12.1. The following expressions have the following meanings:- "Second Property Contract" means the conditional agreement for sale dated 10 January 2006 made between London Borough of Camden (1) and the Transferor (2)"". Later references appear in clauses 12.2., 12.2.7., 12.5. and 12.5.4. I attached the TR1 with my FoI of 4.12.20
It should also be attachment numbered 5 at the bottom of the Land Documents page here [now linked here] where many of the relevant documents can be found. Fois including this one can be found here.
There was no such agreement and Camden confirmed that fact. I didn't ask for the text of that non existent document to be changed. I sought the assertion of its existence to be corrected. I have always been astonished to find that Camden can show no concern to correct a statement in a publicly available document (the TR1) that it has signed an agreement when that agreement never existed.
The reason for this recent Foi request (which essentially repeats the earlier ones, is that leaseholders in the Prince’s Park development have become entitled to buy the freehold. Within the documents surrounding the purchase of most of its land, the existing freeholder has an obligation to pay “overage” which I reckon to be several £millions. It must be critical that any document at the Land Registry that could relate to that obligation is accurate.
With regard to the contribution from the Legal Dept, I am fully aware of the 19.4.2005 agreement between Camden and Trac and the definitions in it but I cannot see that that justifies overlooking the mistake that the legal department believes to have been made. This mistake or anomaly was pointed out to Camden by me in 2009 and has been allowed to remain without correction. Can that be right?
In the light of the above, can I ask you to address my FoI? If you do not either address it or confirm to me that it will be addressed within a limited time, I shall be left with having to request an Internal Review per your last paragraph.
NJ Harding
Thank you for your request for information dated 04/12/2020 about the Prince’s Park development sale and overage. We have dealt with this under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR 2004).
Response
The council may hold the information requested. However we are not processing your request because it is excepted as explained below. We have explained exception applies. Please see the refusal notices which explains how and why it applies. We have provided further advice and assistance at the end of our response.
You requested:
This request is made in the light of the Prince’s Park development being understood to be up for sale and any future owner being the party primarily responsible for paying the overage due on the original sale of the Camden land to then developers/owners.
Evidence from the Land Registry indicated that the early owners were maintaining that the overage obligation was in a document that Camden maintained didn’t exist.
It is clearly important that any purchaser is aware of the correct obligation. See the following:-
(a). FoI requests 3. 8 and 9 (2nd Property Contract) part 5345047. 26.6.09 Also 51 of 27.5.14 9372105
(b) Registry endorsed document TR1 dated 5.9.2008 lodged by solicitors Berwin Leighton which we obtained from the Land Registry site (and shown as an “Official Copy”).
(c) Land Registry endorsed document dated 4.4.2006 Contract for sale of land… between Trac Properties ltd and Cornwall Overseas Developments Ltd. referring to the Second Property Contract
Requests
1. Please inform me as to any efforts made by the Council to ensure that the owners of the Prince’s Park development withdrew the references on the Land Registry site to a “Second Property Contract” between Trac Properties Ltd and Camden dated 10th January 2006.
2. Please inform me as to whether such references have been withdrawn We are unclear exactly what you are requesting. Please see the exception notice set out below.
3. In the event that either Camden is aware that they have not been withdrawn or Camden does not know (in which case it is aware of the potential conflict that could arise), please inform me as to what steps Camden is taking or intends to take to remedy the situation.
This is not really the topic for a request under the EIR 2004. Such requests are for seeking recorded information held by the Council and not to make enquiries as to its future plans and intentions.
Refusal Notice
The exception that applies is:
regulation 12 (c) which states that a public authority may refuse to disclose information to the extent that the request for information is formulated in too general a manner and the public authority has complied with regulation 9
Under Regulation 9 (2) of the Environmental Information Regulations (EIR), a public authority need not comply with a request that is formulated in too general a manner but is required to ask the applicant to provide more particulars in relation to the request.
Please could you provide further explanation and elaborate on what you mean by “the references” and “withdrawing” the same.
Since the Second Property Contract is only mentioned in documents to which the Council is not a party, it cannot ensure that any changes are made to such documents by the parties to such documents.
No such changes, as far as the Council is aware, have been made.
Advice and Assistance
To further assist you we have provided some comments and explanation regarding the
introduction to your request. In this you say;
“Evidence from the Land Registry indicated that the early owners were maintaining that the overage obligation was in a document that Camden maintained didn’t exist”
Looking the responses in FOI requests 3 and 8 as contained in your Item a (FoI requests 3. 8 and 9 (2nd Property Contract) part 5345047. 26.6.09 Also 51 of 27.5.14 9372105) these say information concerning the Second Property Contract / the 10.1.06 agreement is not held by Camden Council, which is not the same as saying it does not exist.
You will have seen the transfer dated 5 September 2008 made between the Council (1) and TRAC Properties Limited (2). The Council contracted to sell the land (the subject of such transfer) to TRAC Properties Limited (“TRAC”) by way of the Conditional Agreement dated 19th April 2005 for Sale and Purchase of the Property…as varied by a Supplemental Agreement dated 6 July 2007. The definition of the Agreement in such transfer confirms this.
Subsequently, but also on 5 September 2008, TRAC transferred the site to Cornwall Overseas Developments Limited (“Cornwall”). The Council was of course not a party to this transfer (“the TRAC / Cornwall transfer”), so its contents were not shared with the Council.
Such transfer does not contain a definition of “Agreement”, but it does contain definitions of “Second Property Contract” and “Section 106 Agreement”, which read:
“Second Property Contract” means the conditional agreement for sale dated 10th January 2006 made between London Borough of Camden (1) and TRAC (2)
“Section 106 Agreement” means the Section 106 Agreement dated 10th January 2006 made between TRAC (1) Community Housing Association Limited (2) and London Borough of Camden (3)”
The Section 106 Agreement is the only document dated 10th January 2006, of which the Council is aware. Looking at the Land Registry portal for the title to this land, it is the only document dated 10th January 2006, which is lodged at the Registry.
So, what does the “Second Property Contract” refer to? The following is the opinion of Camden Legal Services.
Thank you for the copy of the Land Registry endorsed document dated 4.4.2006, that is the Contract for the Sale of land made on that date between TRAC (1) and Cornwall (“the 04.04.2006 Contract”) (which you submitted as item c in your request). As with the TRAC / Cornwall transfer, the Council was not a party to such contract, so its contents were not shared with the Council. As a result of reviewing that document, this has provided further information regarding the “Second
Property Contract”.
By the terms of that contract TRAC agreed to transfer to Cornwall the Property as defined in that contract.
In that contract, the Property is defined as comprising the First Property and the Second Property.
The First Property was the freehold land at 52 Prince of Wales Road, which at the date of this contract was already owned by TRAC. The Second Property was defined as “the property as defined in the Second Property Contract”.
The Second Property Contract is defined as “a conditional agreement for sale (freehold) made between the Council and TRAC relating to property at Dalby Street London Borough of Camden”. N.B. no date was stipulated for this agreement in the definition – why? Only the draftsman may know, but looking at the definitions of “Second Property” and “Second Property Contract” together, in the Council’s view the date which should have been inserted was 19th April 2005.
Nevertheless, importantly we have a reference to the “Second Property Contract”, which is the contract for the sale of land at Dalby Street by the Council to TRAC.
This would appear to explain the reference in the TRAC / Cornwall transfer to “the Second Property Contract”. Between TRAC and Cornwall two properties were transferred by TRAC to Cornwall – the first was the First Property (already owned by TRAC at 04.04.2006 – not transferred by the TRAC / Cornwall transfer) and the second was the land which was transferred on 5th September 2008 by the Council to TRAC.
The “Second Property Contract” should therefore be read as the Contract for the sale of the Second Property – namely the Conditional Agreement dated 19th April 2005 – and not the second of two property contracts between the Council and TRAC relating to the land transferred to TRAC by the Council.
This still does mean an error was made, when the TRAC / Cornwall transfer was drafted and drawn up, as there was no need to include “Second” in that context. However, the draftsman chose to follow the wording in the 04.04.2006 contract, rather than what was agreed in the transfer between the Council and TRAC, and (in the Council’s view) this has only led to confusion, exacerbated by the draftsman’s omission of a date for the Second Property Contract in the definition in the 04.04.2006 contract.
The inclusion of the date of 10th January 2006 in the definition of “Second Property Contract” in the TRAC / Cornwall transfer is not explained, but as said above, from the Council’s reading of the 04.04.2006 contract, the Second Property Contract is in fact the Conditional Sale Agreement
dated 19th April 2005, being the contract for the sale of the Second Property.
Further Information - Standard text
Yours sincerely,
Peter Williams
Thank you for your recent information request. I am writing to give you an update on your request. The information concerned and issues raised are complex and voluminous. Regulation 7 (1) allows the council to extend the deadline for complying with these requests by an additional 20 working days. We are extending the time period until 04 Feb 2021 and you should receive a response by this date. I apologise for any inconvenience this may cause.
Yours sincerely Peter Williams Information Rights Officer
Background
This request is made in the light of the Prince’s Park development being understood to be up for sale and any future owner being the party primarily responsible for paying the overage due on the original sale of the Camden land to then developers/owners. Evidence from the Land Registry indicated that the early owners were maintaining that the overage obligation was in a document that Camden maintained didn’t exist. It is clearly important that any purchaser is aware of the correct obligation. See the following:-
(a). FoI requests 3. 8 and 9 (2nd Property Contract) part 5345047. 26.6.09 Also 51 of 27.5.14 9372105 here
(b) Registry endorsed document TR1 dated 5.9.2008 lodged by solicitors Berwin Leighton which we obtained from the Land Registry site (and shown as an “Official Copy”).
(c) Land Registry endorsed document dated 4.4.2006 Contract for sale of land… between Trac Properties ltd and Cornwall Overseas Developments Ltd. referring to the Second Property Contract
Requests
1. Please inform me as to any efforts made by the Council to ensure that the owners of the Prince’s Park development withdrew the references on the Land Registry site to a “Second Property Contract” between Trac Properties Ltd and Camden dated 10th January 2006.
2. Please inform me as to whether such references have been withdrawn
3. In the event that either Camden is aware that they have not been withdrawn or Camden does not know (in which case it is aware of the potential conflict that could arise), please inform me as to what steps Camden is taking or intends to take to remedy the situation.
Yours sincerely
Nick Harding
Dear Requester
Thank you for your request for information dated 07/08/2020 about Talacre overage. We have dealt with this under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOI).
Response
The council holds the information requested and the answers to your questions are as follows:
I refer to the Conditional Sales Agreement dated 19 April 2005 between Camden and Trac Properties Ltd relating to freehold property adjoining Dalby Street (part of Title Number NGL224383) and some related unregistered freehold property.
1. Please provide me with details of the appointment of the Expert defined in the agreement, any decision he or she has made and the extent to which recovery of Overage has been evaluated as a result.
No expert has been appointed.
2. According to a FOI response I have read, the owner of the property was Hazlewood Properties Ltd a Company registered in the British Virgin Islands. A search of the Land Registry shows that at 16.7.20 that company is still the registered owner. Please advise me as to whether that means that it is responsible for payment of unpaid Overage and further, that no other company, unless a successor, registered on the Land Registry, would be responsible.
Yes, the Land Registry title indicates that the owner of the property is Hazlewood Properties Limited, which (as you say) is a company registered in the British Virgin Islands.
However, the advice you requested is not a matter for FOI (which simply allows access to recorded information). You can seek an opinion from your own legal advisor.
Further Information: [Standard text omitted here]
Yours sincerely,
Peter Williams
Thank you for your e-mail.
I am currently out of the office and my emails will not be read until my return to work on Friday 14 August 2020.
Please forward any urgent information requests to foi@camden.gov.uk.
Yours sincerely,
Peter Williams Freedom of Information & Data Protection Officer Mon, Tues, Thu & Fri
Dear Mr Williams
Could you advise me as to whether I can expect to receive a response
Yours truly
Nick Harding
(sent to wrong address so reply delayed)
Dear Sirs,
I refer to the Conditional Sales Agreement dated 19 April 2005 between Camden and Trac Properties Ltd relating to freehold property adjoining Dalby Street (part of Title Number NGL224383) and some related unregistered freehold property.
1. Please provide me with details of the appointment of the Expert defined in the agreement, any decision he or she has made and the extent to which recovery of Overage has been evaluated as a result.
2. According to a FOI response I have read, the owner of the property was Hazlewood Properties Ltd a Company registered in the British Virgin Islands. A search of the Land Registry shows that at 16.7.20 that company is still the registered owner. Please advise me as to whether that means that it is responsible for payment of unpaid Overage and further, that no other company, unless a successor, registered on the Land Registry, would be responsible.
Please respond by email to emilyharper3000@gmail.com
or
Emily Harper
1 Hampden Road,
London N10 2HP
Thank you for your e-mail.
I am currently out of the office and my emails will not be read until my return to work on Monday 27 July 2020.
Please forward any urgent information requests to foi@camden.gov.uk.
Dear Mr Williams.
I refer to mine of 21.6.20 which I am forwarding here. It was intended as a follow up to your FOI response of 16.6.20 Ref. FOI 14205 (CAM2)
Having received nothing from you now after over 20 working days from 21.6.20 I shall be grateful if you would confirm that no response will be forthcoming so that I can consider what to do next.
Yours sincerely
Nick Harding
This was not asked as a formal FOI and it didn’t receive a reply with a date for response. However, I think an acknowledgement was sent.
Dear Mr Williams
I refer to your FOI response of 16.6.20 Ref. FOI 14205 (CAM2) I am reluctant to respond with a separate FOI request and hope this can be taken as a follow up to this. If that is not acceptable, please advise and I will draft a separate FOI request.
1. My FOI asked what the current situation is on the overage debt and I hoped for a response which would address (a) the amount of overage and (b) the situation on payment of it. However, the response only says “the matter is still subject to internal review service” which I don’t find meaningful. Responses for nearly 4 years have been saying “its very complicated” and that, outside advisors, enquiry agents etc have been appointed. Surely after all this time, the public is entitled to know more? The following are extracts from responses to illustrate my point.
In a response to an FOI request around 6.9.16, Camden said they were independent external consultants ie
“As with other overage clauses, the mechanism for payment of overage in this case is extremely complex, depending on assessment of multiple factors, many of which are commercially sensitive and that require in-depth expert analysis. The Council is currently undertaking this assessment with the aid of independent external consultants, with a view to assessing the amount (if any) of overage that may be payable “.
In October 2017 a request for an update was refused on grounds inter alia that responding would prejudice the Council’s ability to enforce the overage agreement (my words). Nearly three years later, the situation must have changed? In April 2018 the situation was reported to be ongoing with inquiry agents being employed. Two months later the Council wrote
“The Council have been continuing their active efforts to resolve an extremely complex situation, both in terms of identifying quantum of any overage payable, and the party by which it would be payable but this complex situation has not reached resolution”.
In April of 2019 the Council wrote
“The Council has continued to explore whether any payment of overage is due under the contract and if so from whom. However, this is not proving straightforward given the complexity of any overage documentation and the legal structures of relevant parties”.
And in September 2019
“The Council has continued to explore whether any payment of overage is due under the contract and if so from whom. However, this is not proving straightforward given the complexity of any overage documentation and the legal structures of relevant parties”.
On 3.2.20
“We are in the process of obtaining further legal advice from external counsel and may be in a position to provide further clarification after receipt of that. We recommend submitting a further request in 3 months time”.
And the latest from you to which I am responding here
“the matter is still subject to internal review service. For the record the Council does not accept your estimated figure of £3m in respect of overage owing. Section 106 agreements in relation to this development were drafted by in house lawyers with input/ clearance from Peter Harrison QC of Counsel.
Any suggestion that this documentation was not drafted to professional standards is not accepted”.
2. You have said that my estimation of the amount as £3m is not accepted. I attach my estimate which is of £3,877,298 to show how it is made up. In view of the lack of clarity in the key document, I have had to make some assumptions which I see as reasonable and make them so that the three key variables of Freehold Sale Value, increase in “Build Cost” and decrease in Interest shown can be changed if those assumptions are not seen as reasonable. In the estimate used to justify the very low value of the land sold to the developer, the assumption was made that the private flats would sell for £8,197,629. They fetched £20,757,590. That will not surprise those who recall the massive increase in house prices in the years before they were sold. Even allowing for inflation, £8m increasing over four years to £20m is huge and if the Overage agreement failed to justify over £3m “profit share” to the Council, then something is seriously wrong and whoever drafted it, needs to be called to account. Construction costs have, of course, also been increased in my computation. Please inform me if I the amounts above of £8,197,629 and £20,757,590 are incorrect as the difference is huge causing the Overage to be so considerable.
3. It is not clear to me why it is implied that Overage is always complex. I checked on several inner London Councils’ overage clauses etc and what you say was not confirmed by what I read. If you wish I can forward you the information I obtained.
In view of the lack of progress over a long period of time, I believe the situation should be more widely known and I therefore have in mind circulating what I have gleaned not only to all Councillors but also to those known to me who might be interested. I would therefore welcome your response to the above even if it is to say that you have nothing to add to what you have already said.
Regards
Nick Harding
Dear Requester
Thank you for your request for information dated 06 May 2020 about overage for the Princes Park (Talacre) development. We have dealt with this under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004.
Response The council some of holds the information requested and the answers to your questions are:-
Re FOI13726 and the response dated 3rd February 2020.
Para 2 (b) of the response said "We are in the process of obtaining further legal advice from external counsel and may be in a position to provide further clarification after receipt of that. We recommend submitting a further request in 3 months time".
In accordance with the above, I am submitting the request again. That request read:- Please advise me as to
1. the current position
2. If no progress has been made to recover the amount (estimated by me to be over £3m) that would be owed if the legal agreements had been properly drawn up, please advise me of –
(a) the name of the firm of solicitors or the barrister who advised on the relevant s106 agreement(s) and (b) any intended action being taken against them to recover the amount that should be due
As you will appreciate COVID has impacted on the Council’s operations and the matter is still subject to internal review service. For the record the Council does not accept your estimated figure of £3m in respect of overage owing. Section 106 agreements in relation to this development were drafted by in house lawyers with input/ clearance from Peter Harrison QC of Counsel. [My FoI did not concern s106 agts]
Any suggestion that this documentation was not drafted to professional standards is not accepted.
Further Information: (Standard text omitted here)
Yours sincerely, Peter Williams Information Rights Officer, Telephone: 020 7974 7857
Dear Requester
CAM2 Environmental Information Regulations 2004
Thank you for your recent information request.
I am writing to give you an update on your request. The information concerned and issues raised are complex and voluminous. Regulation 7 (1) allows the council to extend the deadline for complying with these requests by an additional 20 working days.
We are extending the time period until 06 Jul 2020 and you should receive a response by this date. I apologise for any inconvenience this may cause.
Yours sincerely, Peter Williams Information Rights Officer
Re Overage for Princes Park (Talacre) development
I refer to my request Ref: FOI13726 and the response dated 3rd February 2020.
Para 2 (b) of the response said "We are in the process of obtaining further legal advice from external counsel and may be in a position to provide further clarification after receipt of that. We recommend submitting a further request in 3 months time".
In accordance with the above, I am submitting the request again. That request read:-
Please advise me as to
1. the current position
2. If no progress has been made to recover the amount (estimated by me to be over £3m) that would be owed if the legal agreements had been properly drawn up, please advise me of -
(a) the name of the firm of solicitors or the barrister who advised on the relevant s106 agreement(s) and
(b) any intended action being taken against them to recover the amount that should be due
Yours truly, Nick Harding
Response underlined.
Dear Requester
Thank you for your request for information dated 30 December 2019 about "overage" due following the sale of Dalby Street and the travellers site. We have dealt with this under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004.
Response
The council holds the information requested and the answers to your questions are as follows:
Re Overage for Princes Park (Talacre) development
I refer to your FOI response no 13,081 dated 30.9.19.
Please advise me as to
1. the current position.
2. If no progress has been made to recover the amount (estimated by me to be over £3m) that would be owed if the legal agreements had been properly drawn up, please advise me of-
(a). the name of the firm of solicitors or the barrister who advised on the relevant s106 agreement(s) and
(b). any intended action being taken against them to recover the amount that should be due.
We are in the process of obtaining further legal advice from external counsel and may be in a position to provide further clarification after receipt of that.
We recommend submitting a further request in 3 months time.
Further Information: Why not check our Portal Open Data Camden before making a new request as your question may already be answered by a previous FOI response or in one of our many useful and interesting datasets. Your Rights If you are not happy with how your response was handled you can request an Internal Review within 2 months of this letter by email to foireviews@camden.gov.uk or post: Information and Records Management Team, London Borough of Camden, Town Hall, Judd Street, London WC1H 9JE. Please quote your case reference number. If you are not satisfied with the Internal Review outcome you can complain to the Information Commissioner’s Office at casework@ico.org.uk telephone 0303 123 1113, or post to Information and Records Management Corporate Services London Borough of Camden Town Hall Judd Street London WC1H 9JE Phone: 020 7974 7857 camden.gov.uk Date: Our reference: Email: 03 February 2020 FOI13726 foi@camden.gov.uk Information Commissioner’s Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF. The ICO website www.ico.org.uk may be useful.
Yours sincerely
Peter Williams Information Rights Officer Telephone: 020 7974 7857
Dear Mr Harding
Environmental Information Regulations 20004 (EIR 2004)
Thank you for your recent information request (below).
I am writing to give you an update on your request. Regulation 7(1) of the EIR 2004 allows us to extend the time period to respond to a request to 40 working days where we reasonably believe that the complexity and volume of the information requested means that it is impracticable either to comply with the request within 20 working days or to make a decision to refuse to do so.
We are extending the time period until 25 February 2020 and you should receive a response by this date.
I apologise for any inconvenience this may cause.
Yours sincerely Peter Williams, Information and Records Management Officer, Law and Governance, Corporate Services, London Borough of Camden
Re Overage for Princes Park (Talacre) development
I refer to your FOI response no 13,081 dated 30.9.19
Please advise me as to
1. the current position.
2. If no progress has been made to recover the amount (estimated by me to be over £3m) that would be owed if the legal agreements had been properly drawn up, please advise me of-
(a). the name of the firm of solicitors or the barrister who advised on the relevant s106 agreement(s) and
(b). any intended action being taken against them to recover the amount that should be due.
Nick Harding
Ref: FOI13591 Dear Requester
Thank you for your request for information dated 28/11/2019 about works carried out at Dalby Street.
We have dealt with this under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004. Response
The council holds the information requested and the answers to your questions are as follows:
1. Please inform me of all works carried out since handover on Dalby Street and the turning circle area in order to conform with Schedule 3, the Permanent Access Plan, which is part of the 30.9.2008 Supplemental S106 agreement (relating to planning permission 2005/4187/P) and the costs if known.
The Council does not have a record of any works, or their costs, carried out on Dalby Street and the turning circle area since handover.
2. Please confirm that none of this work has been paid for by Camden including by the Talacre Sports Centre but the cost has been born by the successors to the signatories of the above s106.
None of the costs have been borne by the Council or Talacre Sports Centre. We do not hold any data on any works that may have been undertaken by other parties.
Background
I am aware that the posts required at the north west corner of the turning circle have frequently been broken and, after sometimes long delays, replaced. Also, the wall at the north east corner of Dalby Street has had to be rebuilt on occasions. Dalby Street (the new access road) is private. The original Dalby Street was stopped up, and the Princes Park building built on it. Its maintenance is the responsibility of the owner. Under the S106 the developer has to maintain access rights to the public over the access road and maintain it well as it forms the only access to the Council’s Talacre Sports Centre. Further Information:
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Williams, Peter <peter.williams@camden.gov.uk>
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2019 at 09:48
Subject: Information Request - FOI13081 (FD)
To: njhnw5@gmail.com <njhnw5@gmail.com>
Date: 30 September 2019
Ref: FOI13081
Dear Mr Harding
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000 - INFORMATION REQUEST
Thank you for your recent Freedom of Information request. The response to your request is attached.
We publish our responses on our Open Data Portal, you can see your response and others back to August 2017 here.
Thank you for your interest in Camden council
Yours sincerely Peter Williams
Information and Records Management Officer Law and Governance Corporate Services London Borough of Camden
FOI 13,081
Dear Requester
Thank you for your request for information dated 06 August 2019 about "Overage" due following the sale of Dalby Street and the Travellers site.
We have dealt with this under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
Response The council holds the information requested and the answers to your questions are as follows:
I refer to my previous request FOI12558 re "Overage" due following the sale of Dalby Street and the Travellers site. Please update me on the situation including about
1. Collecting the amount owed under the contract
2. The amount or estimated amount owed
3. From whom Overage is owed
4. If there has been no progress on this since the response to FOI12558, please advise whether this is still being pursued so that I can decide whether it is appropriate to look elsewhere for a solution given that the legal documentation was clearly intended to provide Camden with several £ms in the event of house prices increasing at anything like the rate they did between the signing of the overage agreement and the sale of private flats.
The contractual situation is complex. The Council is continuing to assess its legal position in respect of the matter.
I am writing to give you an update on your request. We are considering the public interest test for a qualified exemption under s42 and need more time to do this. The Act allows us to extend the time period to respond to a request where we are considering where the balance of public interest lies.
We are extending the time period until 2nd October 2019, and you should receive a response by this date although I expect us to have made a decision within 10 working days. I apologise for any inconvenience this may cause.
Yours sincerely, Sarah Laws
I refer to FOI 12030 re “Overage” due following the sale of Dalby Street and the Travellers site.
Response The council holds some of the information requested and the answers to your questions are as follows:
I refer to FOI 12030 re "Overage" due following the sale of Dalby Street and the Travellers site. Please update me on the situation including about-
1. Collecting the amount owed under the contract
2. The amount, or estimated amount owed
3. From whom Overage is owed
The Council has continued to explore whether any payment of overage is due under the contract and if so from whom. However, this is not proving straightforward given the complexity of any overage documentation and the legal structures of relevant parties
Ref: FOI12030
Thank you for your recent Environmental Information Regulations request. The response to your request is attached.
We publish our responses on our Open Data Portal, you can see your response and others back to August 2017 here.
Thank you for your interest in Camden council
Yours sincerely,
Peter Williams, Information and Records Management Officer Law and Governance
The Council have been continuing their active efforts to resolve an extremely complex situation, both in terms of identifying quantum of any overage payable, and the party by which it would be payable but this complex situation has not reached resolution.
The Council holds the information requested and the answers to your questions are as follows:
I refer to request dated 26.9.17 Ref: 21067024 [Previous response attached] and your response dated 23.10.17. Please update me as to the current situation on the payment of “overage” due three years ago from the sale of Dalby Street and the Travellers site prior to the development of flats now called Princes Park on Prince of Wales Road.
In particular
(a) Please inform me as to how much Camden was due,
(b) how much has been paid and
(c) the situation with regard to obtaining payment of any amount not get recovered.
Further, please inform me as to whether you are objecting to Findon Urban Lofts Ltd application to be struck off the Companies registry or if there is no possibility of that company having an ongoing liability for overage to Camden.
The Council do not have anything definitive further to report. Officers (with the input of lawyers and inquiry agents ) have been continuing their active efforts to resolve an extremely complex situation, both in terms of identifying quantum of any overage payable, and the party by which it would be payable. Officers are not of the view that Findon Urban Lofts Ltd would have liability to pay any outstanding overage
Please inform me as to the current situation on the payment of “overage” due two years ago from the sale of Dalby Street and the Travellers site prior to the development of flats now called Princes Park on Prince of Wales Road. In particular, how much Camden was due and how much has been paid.
The current situation is still being assessed. The assessment is being carried out with the support of external legal, technical, and professional advice because of the complexities and the number of variables that need to be considered
Also please provide me with the report of the independent external consultant who was appointed to advise on this.
All external advice forms part of an overall package of advice prepared by an external legal advisor and is exempt from release under the Act.
Refusal notice section 42 - Legal Professional Privilege
Legal Professional Privilege (LPP) covers communications between lawyers and their clients
for the purpose of obtaining legal advice. Section 42 ensures that the confidential relationship between lawyer and client is protected.
This exemption applies because
A claim for legal professional privilege could be maintained in legal proceedings with respect to the Council’s legal position regarding the report.
The public interest is in favour of maintaining the exemption and outweighs the public interest in disclosure. The public interest arguments for releasing this information are as follows
It would improve the transparency of the decision making process
It would allow the public to know the contents of the report
The public interest arguments for withholding the information are as follows
The Council received the report in the context of it being part of a package of confidential legal advice
Disclosure would have the potential to prejudice the Council’s ability to defend or prosecute its legal interests, either directly, by unfairly exposing its legal position to challenge, or indirectly, by diminishing the reliance it could place on the advice having been fully considered and presented without risk of disclosure
The package of legal advice was of a comprehensive nature and without it the quality of the Council’s decision making would have been reduced since it would not have been fully informed of the legal issues and this would be contrary to the public interest
It is in the public interest that the decisions taken by the Council are taken in a fully informed legal context
It is considered that the public interest in withholding the information outweighs the public interest in disclosing it.
This is a request for information on the Overage obligation contained in the sale agreements dated 19.4.2005 and 6.7.2007 between Camden and TRAC concerning 52 Prince of Wales Road and property relating to Dalby Street Please provide me with details of the amount that has been paid or is payable for Overage. Alternatively, if no payment has yet been received, please inform me as to the current situation, how much is claimed and when it will become due?
We can confirm that no overage has as yet been paid in relation to 52 Prince of Wales Road and the property at Dalby Street.
As with other overage clauses, the mechanism for payment of overage in this case is extremely complex, depending on assessment of multiple factors, many of which are commercially sensitive and that require in-depth expert analysis.
The Council is currently undertaking this assessment with the aid of independent external consultants, with a view to assessing the amount (if any) of overage that may be payable
Response underlined.
We would like to offer our sincere apologies for the delay in which it has taken us to respond to your request. It is Camden’s policy or aim to answer all requests under the Act within 20 working days. However, due to the controversial issues/legal requirements around the information required, your request has now been fully considered.
I refer to the Overage obligation which is part of the agreements dated 19.4.05 and 6.7.07 for the sale of Dalby Street and the Travellers site to Trac Properties Ltd. Please let me know who will now owe Camden for Overage in the light of changes since those agreements were entered into, including for example; The development has been completed. All parts of the site having been sold including the freehold which is now shown in the land registry to be owned by Hazlewood Properties, a company in the British Virgin Islands. Findon Urban Lofts Ltd, the owners of Cornwall Overseas Developments Ltd, having reduced its share capital and reserves to a nominal amount and in January 2015 lodged a Solvency Statement at Companies House which includes a declaration that it will be able to pay (or otherwise discharge) its debts as they fall due during the next year.
The accounts of Findon Urban Lofts Ltd for 31.12.14 makes no mention of any contingent or other liability for Overage
1. INTRODUCTION
We can confirm that the Council holds official copy entries of the registered freehold title for this land (mentioned in the request), dating from January 2012, which named the registered proprietor as Cornwall Overseas Developments Limited (“Cornwall”). It also holds official copy entries of such title dated, 21 December 2015, which named the registered proprietor as Hazlewood Properties Limited (“Hazlewood”). It indicated that the land was transferred to that company, 26 November 2014.
2. OVERAGE OBLIGATION – who will now owe Camden for Overage?
The Council entered into a conditional agreement with TRAC Properties Limited for sale of the land at Dalby Street on 19 April 2005.
Under the terms of that agreement, the Buyer agreed to pay overage (if applicable) to the Council in accordance with the provisions contained in the Second Schedule to such agreement. Such Second Schedule set out the mechanism for when such overage would be payable and how it would be calculated.
The Agreement stipulated that references (i.e. in the agreement) to the Buyer would include reference to its successors in title where the context so permits.
The Council transferred the land (pursuant to the conditional agreement) to TRAC Properties Limited 5 September 2008. On the same day, TRAC Properties transferred what it had acquired (and more land) to Cornwall.
As stated earlier, the freehold interest in the land is now vested in Hazlewood, however, we are yet to confirm further information in relation to our enquires.
Hazlewood Properties Limited was registered as the freeholder in December 2014. The register provides that the transfer to Hazlewood, contains a covenant to observe and perform the covenants, referred to in the Charges Register of the freehold title and of indemnity in respect of the same.
So far, the Council has not had sight of the transfer to Hazlewood, but it is seeking to obtain a copy of this transfer.
3. CHANGES SINCE THE AGREEMENTS WERE ENTERED INTO
By the terms of the Second Schedule the calculation of any overage was linked to the “Relevant Date” which was defined as:
(1) Practical completion of the Development
(2) Completion of the sale or letting of each and every part of the Development intended for an capable of separate occupation; and
(3) First Occupation of all parts of the Development
The affordable units at the site have yet to be occupied, so the third of these criteria has not been fulfilled. The Second Schedule makes provision for this; in that it goes on to stipulate that if the Relevant Date has not been triggered on the date 12 months after the date of practical completion of the Development, then the date 12 months after the date of practical completion of the Development shall become the Relevant Date.
The Final Certificate of practical completion was dated 21 August 2014, so applying the terms of the Second Schedule the Relevant Date is 21 August 2015, and overage may be calculated and negotiated on that basis.
4. FINDON URBAN LOFTS LIMITED
Findon Urban Lofts Ltd was not a party to any of the property documentation involved in this sale. The obligation to pay overage was given by TRAC Properties Limited on behalf of itself and its successors in title. Unless, the freehold interest at any time after Cornwall disposed of such interest, but before it vested in Hazlewood, was vested in Findon, then the obligation to pay overage will not have fallen upon Findon, and at no point will they have had any liability to pay the overage.
We hope the information provided answers your queries
Dear Mr Harding,
Thank you for your email which has been passed to me to respond.
The current position on the overage payment is that the Council is some months away from agreeing any figure as the trigger dates have not yet been reached, and the final agreed sum is likely to be considered commercially confidential
I am therefore unable to assist you further at this stage.
Regards, Andy Thomas
Thank you for your request for information, received on 28 April 2014. You requested:
1. I refer to the Conditional Agreement for Sale dated 19 April 2005 between Camden
and Trac Properties Ltd for the sale of the Travellers Site and Dalby St at Talacre.
Please inform me as to the present status of the “Overage” agreement within that
document.
Response
The present status of the “Overage” agreement is that the liability to pay overage is triggered by the occurrence of the Relevant Date as defined in the Conditional Agreement for Sale. The Relevant Date will be the latest of one of three events set out. In brief (and in general terms) such three events are (1) practical completion, (2) completion of sale or letting and (3) occupation.
I am informed by the Council’s Property Services Division (“PSD”) that such events could well be approaching, but none has not as yet taken place. My colleague in PSD is monitoring the situation.
2. Please include in your response: Any changes in the agreement to the one
registered at the Land Registry
Response
There was one variation made to the Conditional Agreement for Sale, but such did not relate to the overage provisions in such agreement.
3. The impact, if any, of the contractor being owned by the developer in case that was
not envisaged in the agreement
Response
The overage provisions do entitle the Buyer as defined in the Conditional Agreement for Sale to require that deductions may be made in respect of certain costs and charges, when its liability to pay overage is calculated. The close relationship between the contractor and the developer could mean that such costs and charges would not be calculated fully at arms’ length.
However, the agreement does provide that such deductions must be reasonably incurred, so the Council would be able to challenge this, if it considered they do not pass a test of reasonableness. If, however, the requester has other things in mind, could she please elaborate and I shall be happy to consider with my colleagues.
4. The timing of evaluation in the context of the private flats being nearly completed
Response
I would ask the applicant please to elaborate upon what she is seeking here. The overage provisions lay down the procedure to be followed and I know that my colleague in PSD is actively monitoring the situation.
We hope that the information is useful to you.
From: "Morrissey, David" <David.Morrissey@camden.gov.uk> Date: 29 April 2014 09:21:41 BST To: katie mccormack <kati3enw@yahoo.com> Cc: "Mandora, Vinod" <Vinod.Mandora@camden.gov.uk>, "Williams, Peter" <peter.williams@camden.gov.uk> Subject: RE: Freedom of Information request re Dalby St, Tal…
Dear Julia McCormack,
Thank you for your email. We do not hold any information in the Planning service relating to your questions. This would appear to relate to an overage agreement in a sales contract and would appear to be a question for our Property or Legal Services teams. I have forwarded your email to our Access to Information Team.
Regards, David Morrissey
Principal Planner
I refer to the Conditional Agreement for Sale dated 19 April 2005 between Camden and Trac Properties Ltd for the sale of the Travellers Site and Dalby St at Talacre.
Please inform me as to the present status of the “Overage” agreement within that document.
Please include in your response:
- Any changes in the agreement to the one registered at the Land Registry
- The impact, if any, of the contractor being owned by the developer in case that was not envisaged in the agreement
- The timing of evaluation in the context of the private flats being nearly completed
Regards, Julia McCormack
9 (Overage) part 5345047.
Request
Please inform me as to which document contains the details of the Overage agreement between Camden and TRAC Properties, now passed on to Cornwall Overseas Properties Ltd
Response
The overage provisions are contained within the Conditional Agreement for Sale dated 19 April 2005