On 25.1.10, Camden wrote to Nick Harding to say that they were not prepared to respond to seven recent Freedom of Information requests for several reasons, one of which was that they were all "vexatious". Five other requests were not mentioned in this letter but are also beyond the statutory date for reply.
The full letter and its table setting out all requests is linked here. And here. The seven which were specifically stated to be vexatious (and in some cases, to have additional unacceptable features), are copied below. The numbering V1 onwards is shown here for convenience. The 6 figure numbers are Camden's serial numbers for FOI requests and will presumably be capable of being looked up by anyone on the Camden intranet. Three FoIs also referred to in the letter had received responses and are in the page for FoI requests answered to 17 July 2014 being those numbered 12, C and 1 to 11.
Disabled Parking Bays – Time Limits and Location if 2005/4187/P proceeds. 5720510
Background
On 22.1.09, the Directorate of Culture and Environment sent me (Nick Harding) an email in which he was told that a meeting with the Developer was to be held in the following week 2009 to discuss restricting the use of the three disabled parking bays.
In a response to a FOI request in October 2009, Camden said “We propose to impose a time limit on them to prevent them being occupied all day”.
Please inform me as to
(a) Where in relation to the turning circle and the entrance to the Sports Centre the three disabled bays are situated (they are sometimes shown as to the south of the turning circle and sometimes up against the sports centre building)?
(b) Who owns the land that these bays will be on?
(b) Who will have the authority to impose time limits on them?
(c) What decision was made at the meeting in January 2009
(d) Whether the time limits will apply to
Sports Centre users?
Sports Centre workers?
Visitors to the Doctor’s surgery?
Workers at the Doctor’s surgery?
(e) What will the time limits be?
Re-executed s106 Plan enclosure per clause 2.12 5730839
The version of the Re-executed s106 on the Camden Planning Site contains nothing appended that meets the text of that clause ie “2,12 “the Highway Works” works on the public highway that the Council considers necessary to secure the safe operation of the Development as the same are shown on Plan X appended hereto.” Please
(a) provide me with a copy of that Plan
(b) If it was not in the signed version, please inform me of what arrangements have been made to incorporate the plan into the legal agreement
NB A separate FOI request is being made in respect of a plan labelled Plan X PWR TA/01 Temporary Access Stages RevB which is included between pages 6 and 7 of the re-executed s106 and which nothing on the subject of Highway Works
Re-executed s106 enclosed a plan that does not seem to have been referenced in the text 5730864
The version of the Re-executed s106 dated 30.9.08 that is shown on the Camden Planning Site contains a plan labelled Plan X PWR TA/01 Temporary Access Stages RevB inserted between pages 6 and 7. Please
(a) inform me as to where in the text of the agreement it is referenced
(b) if it is not referenced in the text, please inform me whether it is properly a part of the legal agreement
(c) if it is a part of the legal agreement, please inform me as to why it shows five columns when the relevant planning decisions 2005/4187/P and 2008/3688/P only show and permit four columns.
NB A separate FOI request is being made in respect of a Plan referred to in text as follows “2,12 “the Highway Works” works on the public highway that the Council considers necessary to secure the safe operation of the Development as the same are shown on Plan X appended hereto.” Plan X PWR TA/01 Temporary Access Stages RevB has no relevance to the “Highway Works”
“Flawed Plans” 5720546
Background
On 10.1.06, a Council Officer (Chris Day) wrote to the Legal Department (Louise McLaughlan) saying “However on the point I mentioned to you regarding the scheme currently being worked at a high level by various Council officers to look at the possibility of creating the swimming pool facility at the Sports centre… the architects working on this has suggested that the developer’s access plans for the scheme for which planning consent has just been granted ie that which you are working on the s106 currently are possible flawed. The architects comments are currently with planning who may decide further amendments may be necessary to the s106, and if so will advise you accordingly.” [See here]
Requests
(i) Please provide me with details of the comments made by the architects referred to
(ii) Please let me know what changes, if any, were made in the light of those comments
Background
The times when marshals have to be on duty (unless changed as a result of clauses allowing change) once the flats are built are clearly defined in the documents that are part of the supplemental s106 of 30.9.09. They are between one hour before the Leisure Centre opens and one hour after it closes. Nowhere is the word “busy” used to define those times. Nor is it found in the evidence to the public inquiry from Camden or the Developer or in the Inspector’s report.
However, in the letter sent to the Mayor of London dated 4.12.08, Camden used the word “busy” in innumerable places to as defining the time marshals would be on duty.
Requests
(a) Please inform me whether there is any agreement with the developer with regard to the obligation to provide and pay for marshals other than that which is described in Background above.
(b) Please inform me whether anyone other than Council officers saw, edited, revised and/or commented on Camden’s submission to the GLA before it was sent and if so, who they were
Background
(i) According to correspondence in the planning files, Camden was aware at least as early as 8.12.04 that the one way scheme north from Prince of Wales Road to Wilkin Street was not longer an option due to Network Rail having withdrawn its support. [See here]
(ii) On 23.12.04, Camden signed a s106 agreement in respect of the one-way scheme ie 2004/2689/P.
Request
Please advise the reason why Camden signed a s106 agreement for a scheme which they knew could not be fulfilled.
Re the First development scheme for Dalby Street, Talacre. The s106 agreement for this application (20042689/P) dated 23.12.04 contains a number of references to plans or drawings as being annexed. However, the version on the planning web site does not contain any. Please forward or email me the following:
KTW/LOA/01 (See Clause 1.4 and others)
KTW/LPA/01 (See 2.9)
KTW/PTr/02 (See 2.19 and others)
KTW/STAA1/01 (See 2.31)