I began submitting Freedom of Information requests as a last resort when I found that the planning file I was permitted to see in the Town Hall, contained only a very limited amount of information. It also contained nothing on the subject of the sale of the travellers site and Dalby Street. The all important Land Sale agreement was formally refused on grounds of commercial confidentiality then found to be on the HM Land Registry site. I then had to seek confirmation etc that what was in that document was correct and confirmation was later received.
Refused on grounds of cost.
Assigned no 3553 “Please could I have sight (or copies) of all documents, correspondence etc related to the Dalby Street, Talacre planning application prior to the documents in the planning application files 2004/2689/P, 2004/2690/P and 2005/4187/P previously shown to me by Eric Daniels”.
Assigned no 3555 “Please could I have sight (or copies) of all documents, correspondence etc related to the Travellers Site on Dalby Street from 1.1.2002 except to the extent that they have been provided to me by Eric Daniels in the files for planning applications 2004/2689/P, 2004/2690/P and 2005/4187/P or that are provided as part of the FIA request made today for earlier correspondence on that site”
Those applications were made when I found that the planning file I was permitted to see in the Town Hall, contained only a very limited amount of information. It also contained nothing on the subject of the sale of the travellers site and Dalby Street.
I received formal acknowledgments and assigned number 3553 and 3555.
On 27.10.08, the information requested on 03553 was refused on various grounds.
03555 was inadequately handled in my view and I sent this linked complaint letter to Moira Gibb. Hearing of the complaint was delayed due to late arrival of documents from the legal department. Eventually, the complaint was rejected. The letter of rejection is linked here.
This all took several months in spite of continuous chasing and informing council officers that our request would not "admit of delay". During this time, the sale was registered at the Land Registry. Our attempts to prevent the Land Registry from registering the sale also failed on the grounds that we had no interest.
Immediately following Camden's rejection of our complaint, we found that all the documents we had requested were available for £10 in total within 48 hours from the Land Registry. A close scrutiny then showed up some very interesting issues which gave rise to the 11 requests made in a single FoI 5345047 linked here and numbered 1 to 11 below.
Request for information concerning the funding of the Talacre Sports Centre by Sport England limited to the applications themselves Only answered by the applications being provided.
Please provide information as to the authority for the Travellers site to be sold after it became known in 2004 that the scheme of which it was a part and which was discussed at meetings of the Executive held on 14.1.04 and 7.4.04 could not be fulfilled due to the developer, TRAC Properties Ltd, not having the agreement of Network Rail Infrastructure (Spacia) to include Wilkin Street Mews.
Authority was given on the 14th January 2004 and later confirmed on 7th April 2004
Please provide information as to the status including ongoing rights and obligations to and from Camden of the “Second Property Contract” signed by Camden and TRAC Properties Ltd on 10.1.06 (in addition to the s106 agreement signed on the same date). This agreement is referred to in documents in the current extract from the Land Registry for the land that includes the Travellers Site and Dalby Street (NGL637463). It contains rights and obligations between TRAC Properties Ltd and Camden, such rights and obligations being transferred from TRAC to Cornwall Overseas Developments Ltd in the documents referred to in the Charges Register item 7 and Proprietorship Register item 5 of the Land Registry extract for NGL637463. See attachment “12. Land Registry extract including Plan for NGL537463 at 24.6.09” in http://sites.google.com/site/talacrefacts/
Information concerning the status of the second property contract is not held by Camden Council
Please provide information as to the status including ongoing rights and obligations to and from Camden of the “Conditional Agreement for Sale (Freehold)” signed by Camden and TRAC Properties Ltd on 19.4.05. This agreement which was entered into as a result of the meetings of the Executive on 14.1.04 and 7.4.04 related to the selling of the Travellers Site etc subject to the planning application (ie 2004/2689/P) being effective. That planning permission which was for the One-Way scheme, though not expiring until 23.12.09, has not been pursued. However, this 19.4.05 agreement was referred to by Chris Day in his note to the Inquiry Inspector as the relevant document for the sale of land at that time (January 2008). See attachment “12. Land Registry extract including Plan for NGL537463 at 24.6.09” in http://sites.google.com/site/talacrefacts/
The status of the agreement, the sale and purchase is still on going.
Please provide information as to the status including ongoing rights and obligations to and from Camden of the “Supplemental Agreement in respect of a Conditional Agreement for Sale dated 19 April 2005” signed by Camden and TRAC Properties Ltd on 6.7.07. It states that the existence of planning permission (2005/4187/P) satisfied the planning permission condition precedent in the 19.4.05 agreement.
[That planning permission was for a different scheme from the scheme for which the 19.4.05 agreement was made and that potential discrepancy is covered in FOI1 and 3 above]. See attachment “12. Land Registry extract including Plan for NGL537463 at 24.6.09” in http://sites.google.com/site/talacrefacts/
This agreement increased the selling price for the land by £5,500 (from the £320,000 in the 19.4.05 agreement, to £325,500) and had a validity period that ended on 14.12.07.
The status including ongoing rights and obligations to and from Camden of the “Supplemental Agreement in respect of a Conditional Agreement for Sale dated 19 April 2005” signed by Camden and TRAC Properties Limited on 6.7.07. This supplemental agreement made variations to the original sale agreement dated 19 April 2005. Therefore with regard to the status of the supplemental agreement, the sale and purchase, which formed the subject of the original agreement, as varied by the supplemental agreement, proceeded to completion on 5 September 2008. All the rights and obligations to and from the Council contained in the supplemental agreement dated 6 July 2007, which are set out in clauses 2 to 4 inclusive were observed and performed at of before completion and are therefore not ongoing.
Please provide the dates, amounts and reasons for all payments received by Camden from TRAC Properties Ltd and Cornwall Overseas Developments Ltd in respect of the land that is currently within LR637463 ie related to 52 Prince of Wales Road, the Travellers Site, Dalby Street and planning applications 2004/2689/P, 2004/2690/C and 2005/4187/P
The Council as landowner received the sale consideration of £325,500. Part of this, namely the sum of £319,999 was received on 6 July 2007. The remainder (£5,501) was received on 31 July 2008. The Council received a cheque for £500 on 13 July 2007, in payment of legal fees – please see clause 4 of the Supplemental Agreement in respect of a Conditional Agreement for Sale dated 19 April 2005” signed by Camden and TRAC Properties Limited on 6.7.07
Date: 27 October 2009
I have carried out an investigation concerning the query that you raised about your Freedom of Information request. It appears that there was an administrative error on my part and the information was not released to you. Please accept my apology for this error and any difficulties that it may have caused.
The information that you have requested is below:
The Council received the following payments in accordance with the obligations within the two Section 106 Agreements dated 30 September 2008:-
2005/4187/P: The Council received £63,638 on the 12 December 2008 being payment of the Education Contribution in accordance with the Section 106 Agreement
2005/4187/P: The Council received £10,000 12 December 2008 being payment of the Leisure Centre Contribution in accordance with the Section 106 Agreement
2005/4187/P: The Council received £3,000 on the 12 December 2008 being payment of the Traffic Management Order Contribution in accordance with the Section 106 Agreement
2005/4187/P: The Council received £89,000 on the 12 December 2008 being payment of the Highways Contribution in accordance with the Section 106 Agreement
[Since there are many other amounts that have been owed, this response was challenged several times. A formal complaint was then made and on 25.1.10 a full reply including response to the complaint, an apology and offer of recompense was received.]
Please provide a copy of the 19.4.05 agreement referred to in FOI3 above or confirm that the version that is labelled “1. Camden to TRAC Conditional Land Sale Agreement 19.4.05” attached to http://sites.google.com/site/talacrefacts/
is correct
I confirm that the version that is attached labelled “1. Camden to TRAC Conditional Land Sale Agreement 19.4.05” to http://sites.google.com/site/talacrefacts/
is correct
Please provide a copy of the 6.7.07 agreement referred to in FOI4 above or confirm that the version that is labelled ”4. Camden to TRAC Supp Land Sale Agreement 6.7.07” attached to http://sites.google.com/site/talacrefacts/
is correct
I confirm that the version that is attached labelled “4. Camden to TRAC Supp Land Sale Agreement 6.7.97” to http://sites.google.com/site/talacrefacts/
is correct
[Note later – the reference in the request and therefore also the response should have been to 6.7.07 and not 6.7.97]
Please provide a copy of the 10.1.06 agreement referred to in FOI2 above (NB, not the s106 agreement which I have but the land sale agreement of 10.1.06 described as the “Second Property Agreement”)
Information concerning the 10.1.06 agreement referred to in question 2 is not held by Camden Council.
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
The overage provisions are contained within the Conditional Agreement for Sale dated 19 April 2005
Please provide details of the Overage agreement or agreements that apply to developments 2004/2689/P and 2005/4187/P
The only overage agreement in this transaction is that contained within the Conditional Agreement for Sale dated 19 April 2005
Please provide a list of neighbour addresses consulted for planning application 2005/4187/P. The list shown on the website has only 21 addresses of which 6 were not appropriately described as neighbours in this context ie:
Park Building, Talacre Open Space
Talacre Open Space
Travellers Site
Plot 1, Travellers Site
Plot 2, Travellers Site
Plot 3, Travellers Site
The Validation Sheet says “Please consult only those who commented/objected to the 2004/2589/P scheme”
21 owner/occupiers were sent letters to the following addresses on 20.10.05-
Prince of Wales Rd: 42 (flat A), 52, 46, 51, 50, 44, 57, 48, 42, 52A, 53-55
Hadley Street- 2, 2A
plus 17 individually named people (presumably those who had earlier objected to the previous application) to the following addresses on 20.10.05-
Flat 21, 38 Ryland Rd, 31 Alma St, 82 Malden Rd, 70 Grafton Rd, 50 Talacre Rd, 66 Wilkin St Mews, Solar House, 56 Talacre Rd, 4 Athlone H, use, Wilkin St, 66c Talacre Rd, 189 North Gower St, 66 Wilkin St Mew, 70 Grafton Rd, 15 Prince of Wales Rd, 6 Hadley St, Solar House, 50-56 Talacre Rd, 17 Athlone House, Athlone St, Flat 2, 40A Prince of Wales Rd
FOIA-14.9.09. Assigned number 5514855
An evaluation was carried out in respect of 2004/2689/P and was contained in the Fourth Schedule “The Development Appraisal” of the Conditional Sales Agreement between Camden and TRAC Properties Ltd dated 19.4.05. It shows values for private flats based on £363 per sq ft.
Earlier, in September 2004 Camden had accepted the TRAC’s appraisal of values when a decision was made to reduce the proportion of affordable flats below 50%. The text accepted by Camden was “As part owner of the site, LB Camden has access to the financial details of the development appraisals. ….1. Sales Values – Kentish Town property values are low in the Camden context – estimated at £363 per sq ft for this scheme, compared with figures of £800 per square foot or more in higher value parts of the Borough …”
2004/2689/P was not pursued and the current scheme, 2005/4187/P was promoted. There are very significant differences including the requirement in 4187 for the owners of the land to pay for marshals and the upkeep of the new access route. That means very substantial service charges which would impact heavily on the selling prices of the private flats.
In the developer’s submission to the public inquiry, document AP19 showed average values of private flats to be £846 per sq ft. This was prior to the service charge having to increase even further when it was established that marshaling etc costs would only be paid by the private and not the affordable flats.
AP19 was described on 8.10.08 by Bob West as follows: “The figures in the final table of the document [AP19] were produced by the developer to show that they were satisfied that the development was commercially viable.”
The effect of the private flats having to bear all the costs of marshalling was (for example) to increase the service charge and ground rent payable by the owners of a 3 bedroom flat from the £6,900 pa shown in the developer’s appraisal, to my estimate of £9,200 pa.
Please provide the evaluations carried out by Camden or accepted by Camden to ensure the development in planning approval 2005/4187/P was commercially viable to justify:
(a) selling the land
(b) giving the outline and final planning approval
(c) confirming willingness, subject to fulfilment of conditions, to make the Stopping Up orders
Thank you for your recent Freedom of Information request received on 14th September 2009. Your request has now been considered and the information requested is enclosed.
You requested information on the following:
Please provide the evaluations carried out by Camden or accepted by Camden to ensure the development in planning approval 2005/4187/P was commercially viable to justify:
(a) selling the land
Response
The Council satisfied itself that the terms of the sale contract dated 19.04.2005 represented best value reasonably obtainable at that time and the agreed valuation between the Council and the developer is contained within the fourth schedule of the sales agreement dated 19.04.2005. That valuation for the sale price was calculated prior to the planning consent 2005/4187/P being granted. The sale agreement provides for a further calculation is to be undertaken after the development has been built, and such calculation to be in accordance with the provisions within the sale agreement to ascertain whether any overage payments are due to the Council in addition to the sale price.
(b) giving the outline and final planning approval
Response
In accordance with Section 1(1) (a) of the Freedom of Information Act I am obliged to inform you that the information you requested is not held by Camden Council. Camden would not have undertaken an assessment of the application’s commercial viability, the developer would have taken their own advice to confirm or otherwise the viability of the development subject to consents granted.
(c) confirming willingness, subject to fulfilment of conditions, to make the Stopping Up orders
Response
Please see response above.
29.9.2009 on Whatdotheyknow site
Please advise as follows:
Request
Q1. If I am correct in saying that there will no longer be any parking
space on the road joining Prince of Wales Road and the Leisure
Centre?
Response
The existing residents parking bay (approximately six spaces) would be removed, but the three blue-badge holder bays would be retained.
Request
Q2. How many more dedicated spaces for disabled parking (above the existing three) will there be?
Response
The existing three spaces will be retained, but there will be no
additional spaces provided.
Request
Q3. Where will users and workers in the doctors surgery park if they have disabled badges?
Response
The three retained spaces will be accessible to all blue badge-holders, but we propose to impose a time limit on them to prevent them being occupied all day. Blue-badge holders are also able to park in residents' or pay-and-display bays in surrounding streets with no time limit, or on yellow lines for up to three hours, provided there are no further restrictions, such as loading bans, and they are not causing an obstruction.
Request
Q4. Where will the owners of flats and their visitors park if they have disabled badges?
Response
In addition to the answer to 3 above, there will be parking bays in the basement of the new development. However, I cannot say how these will be allocated to occupiers of the flats or if they would be available to visitors.
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000 - INFORMATION REQUEST
Thank you for your recent Freedom of Information request received on 5th October 2009. Your request has now been considered and the information requested is enclosed.
You requested information on the following:
Request
Under the Freedom of Information Act, I have a request about the Dalby Street, Talacre development and the Temporary Access arrangements.
Looking through the traffic consultant’s evidence to the public inquiry, I see (8.59) that it says
“The Temporary Access Plan has been discussed/agreed with the Council and has been the subject of a legal audit/review and is, therefore, considered to be reasonable and appropriate”.
I understand the position of the council at the public inquiry was agreed to have been that they were joint proponents.
Could you:
1 Let me have a copy of the "legal/audit review" document referred to
Response
In accordance with Section 1(1) (a) of the Freedom of Information Act I am obliged to inform you that the information you requested is not held by Camden Council.
Request
2 If it is not clear from the content of this document, inform me where it is referring to the temporary, ie construction, phase of the development
Response
Please see response above.
Request
3 Inform me as to the distance between the bridge and the east and west corners of the junction of the entrance for construction traffic
Response
In accordance with Section 1(1) (a) of the Freedom of Information Act I am obliged to inform you that the information you requested is not held by Camden Council. The Council does not hold a drawing showing the precise location of the site entrance.
However, during stages 1 and 2 of construction, when the existing building at 52 Prince of Wales Road is demolished and the new access road is constructed, the entrance would be between the bridge and the eastern footway of Dalby Street. This ranges from approximately 2.7m to 8.5m from the bridge, measured along the existing kerb line on Prince of Wales Road.
During stages 3 and 4, when the new building is constructed on the site of the existing Dalby Street, the site access would move to where the existing junction to Dalby Street is.
This access could range from approximately 9.8m to 17.0m from the bridge, again measured along the existing kerbline on Prince of Wales Road.
Request
4 Confirm that in no event will construction traffic be permitted to use the existing Dalby Street.
Response
Construction traffic would not be permitted to use the existing Dalby Street until it is stopped up.
Dalby Street would not be stopped up until the replacement access road is in place, i.e. at the end of stage 2 of construction as defined the Temporary Access Plan.
Request
1. If the flats are built and the council finds there is a reduction in pedestrians coming to the Sports Centre and you believe it is due to fear of crime on the new footpath, please let me know: 1. If the Council has the ability to insist upon the owners of the flats paying for extra security staff, for example at both ends of the footpath?
Response
Camden Council does not have that power.
Request
2. If it has that ability, where does it derive from?
Response
N/a
Request
3. What financial security does it hold to ensure compliance?
Response
N/a
Follow up sent about 29.10.09
Thanks for your reply but I am not satisfied that two of my questions have been adequately addressed ie:
1. “If the flats are built and the council finds there is a reduction in pedestrians coming to the Sports Centre and you believe it is due to fear of crime on the new footpath, please let me know: if the Council has the ability to insist upon the owners of the flat?”
The Service Management Plan which is Schedule 5 to the s106 agreement contains a section at the end under “Monitoring” which refers to the Council’s right to impose costs on the Owners in order to ensure that the “Paramount Objective” defined in the s106 is met.
My question, at this point, is why those clauses do not provide the Council with that power?
Response to follow up query
We are not in a position to answer your query, as this information is not held by Camden Council. In your query you are requesting an opinion, whereas the Freedom of Information Act can only answer questions concerning information that is held by the authority. As a consequence this information is not held. The original response that “Camden Council does not have that power” is all of the information that we can provide you with under the terms of the Act.
Request
Currently the Sports Centre caters for a variety of activities and users. In some cases, it is impossible for users to go by public transport or on foot and even if they could, many would be disinclined to due to. These include activities that could be particularly affected by the difficulties in dropping and collecting, especially where they are subject to start times for groups as is usually the case, for example:
(a) Parties eg birthday parties
(b) Go-Kart racing
(c) Gymnastics and trampolining outside school hours
(d) Football coaching, outside school hours
(e) Tennis coaching
Could you provide me with estimates of the changes in the numbers and revenues for the current major activities that will result from the severely restricted access? (This request does not relate to the period of construction)
Response
In accordance with Section 1(1) (a) of the Freedom of Information Act I am obliged to inform you that the information you requested is not held by Camden Council. No investigation to estimate changes to customer trends has been carried out.
Request
I understand that the footpath on the park side of the building will be watched by CCTV cameras. Could you let me know who will monitor them and when?
Response
In accordance with Section 1(1) (a) of the Freedom of Information Act I am obliged to inform you that the information you requested is not held by Camden Council. There are no plans for CCTV to be installed in Talacre Park.
Follow Up sent about 29.10.09
Thanks for your reply but I am not satisfied that two of my questions have been adequately addressed ie:
2. “I understand that the footpath on the park side of the building will be watched by CCTV cameras. Could you let me know who will monitor them and when?”
Your reply relates to CCTV in Talacre Park. I was asking about the CCTV referred to in clause 8 of the Pedestrian Access Plan which is Schedule Four of the s106 agreement.
Response to follow up query received 27.11.09
The developer is required to provide CCTV coverage of the pedestrian route, but as yet we have no more detail surrounding this subject.
Request
Please inform me whether there are or are not to be columns in the pedestrian footpath and which of the following is consistent with the planning approval:
(a) Drawing KTW4/P A1/02 rev F Proposed Ground Floor Plan, referred to in the last paragraph of the Decision dated 5.11.08, signed by Charles Thuaire on the CLOPUD 2008/3688/P. This shows columns in the footpath.
(b) Drawing no 52051a/A/7a. This is referred to at the start of the Pedestrian Access Plan scheduled in the Supplemental S106 dated 30.9.08 for 2005/4187/P as follows “This plan should be read in conjunction with Drawing no 52051a/A/7a (“The Drawing”)”. That drawing shows no columns.
(c) The following included in the letter of Bob West, Acting Assistant Director, Planning, Culture and Environment Directorate ref. C&E/BW/EL/L05 of 8.10.08, numbered paragraph 6. “The pedestrian route, as has been stated in many documents previously, has through visibility between the sports centre foyer and Prince of Wales Road …”.
(d) The following in Charles Thuaire’s email of 20.10.08 “In particular I can confirm that the approved plan (notably ground floorplan KTW4/PA1/02 rev D) showed structural columns on the parkside elevation which straddled the public footway and this continues to be shown on the latest revised plans notably ground floorplan KTW4/P/A1/02 rev E”.
(e) The following in Bob West’s email of 21.10.08 “I have looked into this again in detail. …… The 4 columns are … in a line along the boundary rather than straddling the footpath.”
Response
We can confirm that there will be 4 columns on the footpath, placed to one side of it near the boundary with the park, as shown on the approved plans for both permissions dated 10.1.06 ref 2005/4187/P and 5.11.08 ref 2008/3688/P.
Background:
The risk and perception of crime on the footpath (especially after dark) and the risk that existing and potential users of the Sports Centre and Treetops would be put off, was clearly a concern. The fact that the residents in the private flats would be using the footpath was seen by the developer and Camden as (1) showing that they at least, wouldn’t see it as a problem and (2) that the more people that used it, the safer it would be and seem to be. An example was the following extract in a letter from the Director of Culture and Environment to Frank Dobson MP at the time of the Executive (Environment) Sub-Group meeting in June 2008: “the pedestrian path leading to the sport centre also forms the route to the entrance to the new development, for both the residential units and …”. Hence this “de minimis” change would or should have had an evaluation before it was accepted as being de minimis
Request
With regard to the above, please provide the information in your possession and related considerations which you took into account in allowing the entrance to the private flats to be moved from the pedestrian footpath, where it was seen as enhancing safety and perceptions of safety, to the main road ie Prince of Wales Road.
Response
In accordance with Section 1(1) (a) of the Freedom of Information Act I am obliged to inform you that the information you requested is not held by Camden Council.
There is no information on file or elsewhere covering this issue of public safety for users of the flats and sports centre.
The assessment of the revised scheme ref 2008/3688/P, subject to a Certificate of Lawfulness, was only based on a physical comparison between the approved plans of 2005/4187/P and the proposed plans and whether they were deemed materially different in design, size and form as well as mix of uses and layout. It did not involve an assessment of the planning merits of the case. However the planning report recommending approval of this Certificate did touch on this issue in conclusion and stated that "The overall layout changes are considered acceptable and maintain the mix of uses and pattern of usage at ground floor, ensuring that there is pedestrian activity along the whole new footpath serving the sports centre". This report is available on the website for inspection and can be viewed at the following URL (report for decision dated 5.11.08 ref 2008/3688/P): www.camden.gov.uk
Background
Objectors to the scheme noticed in early October 2008 that the drawings were showing columns in the pedestrian footway, in spite of the text in the Pedestrian Access Plan. This was pointed out in an urgent letter and email on 5.10.08 to Rachel Stopard. Camden’s submission to the Mayor was made on 8.10.08. Although letters from Camden dated up to 8.10.08 were included in the submission to the Mayor, the copy of the Camden’s submission which I and others received contained no reference to the 5.10.08 letter but it may have been forwarded since. In my submission dated 21.10.08 I quoted both the Camden communications ie one that said the columns are within the footway, the other that they are not. The information sought is to discover the extent to which the Mayor was aware of this discrepancy and what, if anything, he was informed by Camden on this subject.
Request
Please provide me with all the information given by you to the Mayor of London as part of the submission on that date, in the two months before that date and following 8.10.08, in each case, on the subject of the pedestrian access route and the columns purported to be within it.
Response
There was no reference in the submission to the Mayor of London on the 8 October 2008 to the issue of columns in the pedestrian footpath. Your letter referring to this issue had unfortunately ‘crossed in the post’ with the submission to the GLA. In accordance with Section 1(1) (a) of the Freedom of Information Act I am obliged to inform you that the information you requested is not held by Camden Council. As there does not appear to be any record of this issue subsequently being formally brought to the Mayor’s attention by the Council. However, the issue was brought to the Mayor’s attention by objectors to the proposal and is discussed in the report. It was clearly part of his consideration before making his decision to grant consent to the Council to proceed with making the stopping up orders.
Background
At the public inquiry in December 2007, Camden and the developer agreed that a road safety audit would be carried out covering the new road and pedestrian accesses. That fact is evidenced in the inspector’s report where he described the decision as being a positive result of the inquiry.
In response to my question 9 months later, on 8.10.08 Bob West wrote “The Stage 2 Road Safety Audit will be undertaken at such time as the detailed design of the Highway scheme for Prince of Wales Road is complete. It will include the design of the new access road and pedestrian arrangements, as agreed to previously …”
Since then Stage 1 of the development ie the demolition of 52 Prince of Wales Road appears to have been completed.
Request
With regard to the Road Safety Audit of the new access routes promised at the public inquiry, please
(a) provide a copy
(b) provide the terms of reference to the extent not set out in (a)
If the audit has not yet been carried out, please
(i) inform me when it is expected to be
(ii) provide to me the terms of reference
(iii) inform me as to where an obligation exists preventing the developer from starting work on stage 2 prior to the carrying out of this Audit and the remedying of any issues resulting from it.
(iv) if there is no signed obligation per (iii) above, inform me as to what mechanism exists to prevent the developer commencing stage 2 and the building of the new road.
(v) inform we whether the road safety access situation at the junction of New Dalby Street and Prince of Wales Road during the period of construction will be included and if not, what consideration has been given to its exclusion.
Response
In accordance with Section 1(1) (a) of the Freedom of Information Act I am obliged to inform you that the information you requested is not held by Camden Council. The Road Safety Audit (RSA) has not yet been undertaken, nor have the terms of reference been set out. The RSA would take place at such time as the detailed design of the Highway works is complete, prior to carrying out the highway works. This detailed design has not yet commenced, as we have not had a programme from the developer for their implementation. The Highway works would not commence until the RSA report has been considered and the design altered as appropriate, if necessary. Without the highway works in place the developer would be unable to move from stage 2 to stage 3 of construction, as the highway works include constructing the new access road junction onto Prince of Wales Road. A RSA does not include temporary situations during construction, if is effectively a ‘double check’ of the design, from the dual perspectives of compliance with the relevant guidance and regulations and from the point of view of the user.
Background
When asked about this verbally, an officer in the highways section seemed to say that no thought had been given to this issue. However, that is anecdotal and other departments may be responsible for ensuring compliance. The facts are that at present, the supply of disabled facilities consist of 3 dedicated bays and the ability for those with badges to use 6 spaces on Dalby Street. Competition comes mainly from disabled Sports Centre users.
If the development is built in accordance with what appears in the current plans etc, there will be 3 dedicated bays (as at present) and no spaces on the access road. The demand will be very significantly increased by the occupants and workers at the medical centre and the 55 flats. No parking is available in the basement other than for flat owners and disabled drivers would find the spaces there inaccessible. The Principal Policy Officer, Engagement and Diversity Team, Customers, Strategy & Performance informed me that this will have been looked at but I have been unable to obtain any further information.
Request
Please provide the information in your possession and related considerations which you took into account with a view to ensuring that the situation of disabled drivers needing access to the Sports Centre after the development is built, is consistent with the Council’s statutory obligations, obligations with regard to best practice and its own constitution, UDP and other local regulatory documents.
Response
In accordance with Section 1(1) (a) of the Freedom of Information Act I am obliged to inform you that the information you requested is not held by Camden Council. We have no information on file relating to your request.
Requests
(1) Please provide me with any information in your possession in relation to ensuring that the structure of the building will be safe in the light of the fact that the approved plans show four columns holding up the building when the developer, in his letter applying for the CLOPUD 2008/3688/P, said “An additional structural column is required at the front of the building, following the recommendations of a structural engineer”
Response
In accordance with Section 1 (1) (a) of the Freedom of Information Act I am obliged to inform you that the information you requested is not held by Camden Council. We have no information on the file from the applicants to explain why a structural column was originally required here and why it was later no longer required
(2) Please confirm that Camden has decided not to permit a building under 2005/4187/P with this 5th column.
Response
Both approved schemes on permissions dated 10.1.06 ref 2005/4187/P and 5.11.08 ref 2008/3688/P do not show this 5th column.
Followed up 6.11.09 by NJH starting with original request and response.
You have misunderstood my request. It related to the fact that since approval (which you have confirmed was for four columns), the developer has said that his structural engineer has said the structure would be unsafe unless it had a fifth column. Not the other way round. That is according to the latest information available from the CLOPUD 2008/3688/P documents on Camden’s planning site on the internet.
You have confirmed that the approval is only for four columns. Please could you provide the two items of information I requested.
Response to above follow up query received 25.11.09
Originally a request was made for advice on an amended scheme, this referred to the need for an additional 5th column as shown on plan A1/02 rev F. The later submitted application in a letter dated 23.7.08 (which is on file for inspection) again referred to the need for an additional structural column as recommended by the structural engineer and the plan A1/02 rev E showed a 5th column at the front. However after this application was invalidated, it was resubmitted with a covering letter dated 7.10.08 referring to revised plans including A1/02 rev E which showed deletion of the extra 5th column. Subsequent revisions to plans were made, as noted on the officer delegated report, which resulted in the ground floor plan being further revised to rev F. The final approved plan referred to on the decision notice for the ground floor is rev F. The approved plan for the ground floor noted rev F, held on the case file and shown also on the website, shows the deletion of this 5th column. We are not aware from the file or website of any later information from the developer which suggests that a 5th column is now required. We have no further information in our possession to explain why the 5th column is no longer required.
Background
The re-executed s106 dated 30.9.08 was stated to be identical to the original s106 except in defined areas. No mention was made anywhere to Plan X which appears in the re-executed s106.
Request
Please inform me as to the status of Plan X PWR TA Temporary Access Stages rev B in the Re-Executed s106 dated 30.9.08 (re-executing the original of 10.1.06) and the significance of it showing 5 columns.
Response
It is felt that this question is outside the scope of the Freedom of Information Act. As you appear to be seeking Camden’s opinion as to what the status is. This would be a professional opinion and not information actually held by the Council.
Background
Clause 4.16 of the Supplementary s106 reads “Upon acquiring a registerable interest in the Travellers Site and part Dalby Street the Owner covenants to re-execute this Agreement”.
Request
Please provide the information in your possession showing that clause 4.16 of the Supplementary s106 dated 30.9.08 has been complied with and/or fulfilled and provide a copy of the document
Response
In accordance with Section 1(1) (a) of the Freedom of Information Act I am obliged to inform you that the information you requested is not held by Camden Council as the clause referred to be carried over from previous version of the Supplementary Agreement was produced at a time prior to relevant parties having an interest in the land. At the point the Supplementary Agreement was executed (30 September 2008) all relevant parties had an interest in the land and hence no further action is required under the clause.
Background
The Temporary Access Plan states that it comes into force following Stopping Up. Its footer shows it to have been produced in July 2008 and it doesn’t appear to take account of changes in the main part of the Supplemental s106. Although indicating that there was a timetable of works which would involve the period of temporary access being only 62 weeks, starting from when 52 Prince of Wales Road was demolished, that took place in December 2008 and no further work has been carried out.
Request
Please provide any revisions to the above or confirm that the complete supplemental s106 dated and signed on 30.9.08, shown on the Camden website and forwarded to the Mayor of London remains the document that sets out the obligations of the parties at this time.
Response
An exemption under Section 21 (1) of the Act is being applied.
Section 21; Information accessible to applicant by other means
This exemption applies because the information is accessible to you by other means as the document available is the most current and up to date document and it will be possible to view any revisions.
Request
Please provide all notes and minutes of all meetings held with Sport England concerning the site at Dalby Street, Talacre since 1.7.08
Response
In accordance with Section 1(1) (a) of the Freedom of Information Act I am obliged to inform you that the information you requested is not held by Camden Council. A meeting did take place but there is no formal record or minute.
Request
Please inform me as to the relevant indexing clause and therefore base date or dates for amounts paid or due under the signed and effective s106 agreements
Response
An exemption under Section 21 (1) of the Act is being applied. Section 21; Information accessible to applicant by other means
This exemption applies because the information is accessible to you via the s106 document.
Background
The Travellers Site and Dalby Street were conditionally sold to the Developer for £320,000 following a conditional sale agreement agreed by Camden’s Executive Committee to enable 2004/2689/P to be carried out. The sale was later purportedly completed for a total of £325,500 following a supplemental sale agreement quoting 2005/4187/P as the justification for the sale. The main justification for both those approvals was the provision of affordable flats.
The Temporary Access Plan contains a timetable showing Stage 1 as taking 4 weeks, Stage 2 a further 18 weeks, Stage 3 a further 12 and Stage 4 a further 28 weeks. Evidence on the ground at 8.9.09 is that Stage 1 (the demolition of 52 Prince of Wales Road) was completed in December 2008 but no further work on the development has been carried out since. The area that was the Travellers Site is occupied by a large shipping container which arrived on 1.8.09. A van and several cars arrived shortly afterwards and enter and leave the site frequently.
Following frequent letters to Camden warning of danger of the development not being completed due to its uneconomic nature, Clause 4.23 of the Supplemental s106 of 30.9.08 was quoted as protecting the public’s interest in this regard.
Requests
(a) Please inform me what point has been reached in the Temporary Access Plan
(b) Has Stage 1 in the Temporary Access Plan been completed?
(c) Has Stage 2 in the Temporary Access Plan been started?
(d) What obligation is on the owner of the land that used to be the Travellers Site to complete the Development for which planning approval 2005/4187/P was given?
(e) What obligation is on the owner of the land that used to be 52 Prince of Wales Road to complete the Development for which planning approvals 2005/4187/P and 2004/2690/C were given?
(f) What action can Camden take and when if neither 2004/2689/P nor 2005/4187/P are completed?
Response
A – C. In accordance with Section 1(1) (a) of the Freedom of Information Act I am obliged to inform you that the information you requested is not held by Camden Council. No information has been received concerning these requirements. However, our ongoing monitoring of this matter indicates that Stage 1 has been
completed.
D – E. If there was an obligation on the owner then it would covered in the S106 document. This information has previously provided to you in correspondence (paragraph 9) from Bob West dated 8th October 2008.
F. It is felt that this question is outside the scope of the Freedom of Information Act. As you appear to be seeking Camden’s opinion as to possible action it would consider taking. This would be a professional opinion and not information actually held by the Council.
Background
Outline planning approval 2005/4187/P was given before the subject of access was addressed. Hence the approved drawings at that time had no facilities for marshals. In all the discussions that have taken place both during the public inquiry and elsewhere, it has been envisaged that at certain times there may be two marshals ie one at each end of the access routes.
Following the requirement for marshals, no change has been made to the drawings to show how even one will be accommodated. The only relevant change was to move the entrance for the private flats from being on the footpath to being on Prince of Wales Road. That, if anything made it less easy to find space for them as it had been suggested that they might share facilities, (though it was not clear how) with the concierge since both marshals and concierge are employed by the private freeholders and the concierge is only responsible for the private flats.
The sale of land by Camden to the Developer and the stopping up orders means that the developer has control of the access routes. However, no space can be detected where his or her facilities could be at either end.
Request
(a) In respect of the period following practical completion of the development (ie after stage 4 as described in the Temporary Access Plan), please inform me as to where, within the agreed drawings, the marshals (required by the Service Management Plan (Schedule 5), the Traffic Marshalling Brief (Schedule 6) and elsewhere in the Supplementary s106 dated 30.9.08) will have facilities, both at the turning circle and the Prince of Wales Road ends of the access routes.
Response
In accordance with Section 1(1) (a) of the Freedom of Information Act I am obliged to inform you that the information you requested is not held by Camden Council
Request
(b) Please inform me as to the facilities, if any, Camden will make available to the marshals in order to ensure they can fulfil their duties and for the owners of the land to comply with their statutory obligations.
Response
Please see response above.
Request
Please provide me with a copy of the formal record of the meeting or of meetings that took place between Executive Members with officers prior to the meeting of the Executive (Environment) Sub-Group of 19.6.08 – in accordance with the Constitution part 4 clause 2.2 (b) page 121
Response
In accordance with Section 1(1) (a) of the Freedom of Information Act I am obliged to inform you that the information you requested is not held by Camden Council. Committee Services Officers do not attend pre-meetings of the Executive (Environment) Sub-Group. They only take minutes of the formal meetings.
Followed up 6.11.09 starting with original request and response
The section in the constitution I referred to and a relevant later section says the following:
2.2 (b) “Executive Members may meet in private in order to have early collective discussions on a wide range of options in relation to policy and/or budget matters. It will be for the Executive to determine on each occasion who may attend these meetings. Where officers attend these meetings a formal record will be kept and will be available under the Access to Information Rules”
2.4 (b) Where executive decisions are delegated to a committee of the Executive, the rules applying to executive decisions taken by them
shall be the same as those applying to those taken by the Executive as a whole.
My question does not relate to Committee Services Officers but to any officers. Please therefore advise:
(a) what, if any meetings took place,
(b) what officers were present
(c) how the constitutional obligation referred to was met.
(d) provide me with the formal records that are referred to as being available under the Access to Information Rules
Response to above query received 25.11.09
I have not been in a position to locate any information relating to Pre-meeting(s) of the Executive (Environment) Sub-Group on 19.6.08. So I can only reiterate my original response that Camden holds no information concerning this subject matter.
Request
Please provide me with a copy of the formal record of the meeting or of meetings that took place between Executive Members with officers prior to the meeting of the Executive (Environment) Sub-Group of 20.3.07 – in accordance with the Constitution part 4 clause 2.2 (b) page 121
Response
In accordance with Section 1(1) (a) of the Freedom of Information Act I am obliged to inform you that the information you requested is not held by Camden Council. Committee Services Officers do not attend pre-meetings of the Executive (Environment) Sub-Group. They only take minutes of the formal meetings.
Request
On the occasions when it is necessary for the freeholders to employ marshals at the Prince of Wales Road junction of Dalby Street due to the actual or expected numbers of vehicles arriving to drop off and deliver in the service lay-by next to the entrance to the sports centre, please inform me as to the authority that they will have to stop vehicles and to cause them to move safely on Prince of Wales Road.
Response
Further to your email, received on 3 October 2009, we are pleased to enclose/append/attach the requested information.
The marshals will be able to operate on the private access road which will replace Dalby Street and will have the authority granted them by the land owner in accordance with the Section 106 agreement. They will have no authority to operate on any public highway, such as Prince of Wales Road where only the Police or the Council’s parking attendants have the power to deal with offences or issues on the highway.
We hope that the information is useful to you
Request
This question relates to Dalby Street, Talacre and the situation at the junction of Prince of Wales Road and the new Dalby Street.
Please advise:
(a) Whether the Road Safety Auditors who reported on the safety of the Prince of Wales Road “improvements” were provided with the statistics for potential demand to enter and exit New Dalby Street indicated by the statistics referred to at the public inquiry of 63 vehicles an hour in the late afternoon?
(b) The report from the GLA dated 3.12.08 in response to Camden’s request to be allowed to stop-up Dalby Street, referred to this junction as being “priority controlled”. Can you tell me what is meant by “priority controlled”?
(c) What evidence was provided to the GLA to satisfy it that this junction can be safe if it is controlled as a result of having marshals at both ends of the cul-de-sac or having a traffic light
(d) What measures, if any, will there be:
(i) To prevent drivers from entering New Dalby Street when the single space for delivering and collecting at the Sports Centre is occupied and there is no prospect of reaching it within a reasonable period?
(ii) To prevent drivers reversing into Prince of Wales Road?
(iii) To ensure that the patronage of the Sports Centre is not impacted by the change in access and thus that the “Paramount Objective” defined in the s106 agreement is fulfilled?
Response 26.11.09
Re: Freedom of Information Act 2000
Further to your form, received on 16 November 2009, we are pleased to enclosed the requested information.
(RESPONSES SHOWN IN ITALICS)
(a) Whether the Road Safety Auditors who reported on the safety of the Prince of Wales Road “improvements” were provided with the statistics for potential demand to enter and exit New Dalby Street indicated by the statistics referred to at the public inquiry of 63 vehicles an hour in the late afternoon?
A stage 1 Road Safety Audit is a preliminary design stage audit. It was carried out against the preliminary design drawing, which was the drawing prepared for the public consultation on the highway works. The traffic data was not required for the audit or provided to the auditors.
(b) The report from the GLA dated 3.12.08 in response to Camden’s request to be allowed to stop-up Dalby Street, referred to this junction as being “priority controlled”. Can you tell me what is meant by “priority controlled”?
'Priority controlled' simply means there is a form of priority between different flows of traffic, which is indicated by the give-way line. The give-way line on Dalby Street indicates to drivers exiting the road that traffic on Prince of Wales Road has priority.
(c) What evidence was provided to the GLA to satisfy it that this junction can be safe if it is controlled as a result of having marshals at both ends of the cul-de-sac or having a traffic light
Traffic exiting the new access road would not be controlled by marshals or a traffic signal, but by a give-way line.
(d) What measures, if any, will there be:
(i) To prevent drivers from entering New Dalby Street when the single space for delivering and collecting at the Sports Centre is occupied and there is no prospect of reaching it within reasonable period?
The space referred to in front of the sports centre entrance is for loading and unloading goods, rather than passengers. Passengers may be dropped-off of collected from the turning circle. The marshals would be there to ensure that such drop-off and pick-ups are swift, to ensure that the traffic keeps moving in the access road.
(ii) To prevent drivers reversing into Prince of Wales Road?
The purpose of the marshals would be to keep the traffic moving in the access road, to reduce the potential need or temptation for a driver to reverse onto Prince of Wales Road. It would not be possible to entirely prevent vehicles reversing onto Prince of Wales Road should a driver decide to, but operation of the marshals is intended to reduce the potential for this activity.
(iii) To ensure that the patronage of the Sports Centre is not impacted by the change in access and thus that the “Paramount Objective” defined in the s106 agreement is fulfilled?
The marshals, restrictions on deliveries and other measures in the Servicing Management Plan are all designed to ensure the effective and efficient operation of the access road and the traffic using it. This is to the benefit of the sports centre to ensure that patrons that are currently dropped-off and picked-up by car would still able to do so, should they choose to.
Frequent references have been made to there being through visibility between the Sports Centre and Prince of Wales Road. For example:
(i) David Jenkins Proof of Evidence to the Public Inquiry 4.63 says ³4. Through visibility all the way from Prince of Wales Road to the sports centre entrance, with no recessed doorways on the side of the new building.
(ii) Executive meeting 7.4.04 (re one way scheme) Report 2.0 Updated Position
2.6 Some other points of concern that have previously been expressed by Ward Members are addressed below
2.6 (b) Effect on the view and access to the sports centre - .... and the new pedestrian access will give a clear line of sight to the sports centre.
(iii) In Camden¹s letter of 24.7.08 to Sport England justifying the development in the light of concern about its impact on the Sports Centre, it said:
³The pedestrian path... would have clear through-visibility between Prince of Wales Road and the sports centre foyer²
Request:
(a) Please confirm that there is the clear view from the Sports Centre to Prince of Wales Road as described in those statements and letters from the Council.
(b) Please inform me which approved drawing(s) demonstrate that there is a clear view from the Sports Centre entrance.
(c) Please confirm or otherwise that the following drawing(s)s which show no view clear of unclear -- through from the Sports Centre entrance to Prince of Wales Road are not approved drawings:
- Plan "General Arrangement" 5205/a/A/7,
- and Engineering Drawing drawn by DJ (Dave Jenkins) dated January 2008 showing proposed layout (red) et al,
- and KTW4/P/A1/02/E (Certificate of Lawfulness)
- and KTW/A1/02 dated 10.06.04
Response received 1.12.09
Re: Freedom of Information Act 2000
Further to your form, received on 16 November 2009, we are pleased to enclose the requested information:
The plans approved through the planning process provide clear through visibility between the sports centre entrance and Prince of Wales Road. The purpose of this through visibility is for personal security reasons, so that any activity on the pedestrian route can be observed from either Prince of Wales Road or the sports centre entrance. As I assume you are aware, there has been an issue with respect to the proposed columns that would be sited in the pedestrian path being accidentally omitted from some plans. There are now four proposed, with the need for the fifth, closest to Prince of Wales Road, now deleted. Approved plan KTW4/P/A1/02/F, from the Certificate of Lawfulness decision dated 5 November 2008, shows the proposed four columns.
The four columns are narrow and well spaced apart, and in a line along the boundary rather than straddling the footpath. The Pedestrian Access Plan identifies and sets criteria for detailed community safety, to meet the objective of pedestrian safety. The columns do not prejudice reaching this outcome, and meet the test in clause 7 in this respect. The through visibility is demonstrated on KTW4/P/A1/02/F, or on any of the other plans you listed.
With regard to the four drawings you specify, KTW4/P/A1/02/E (Certificate of Lawfulness) is superseded by KTW4/P/A1/02/F. KTW4/P/A1/02/F also supersedes KTW/A1/02 dated 10.06.04. KTW4/P/A1/02/E and KTW/A1/02 are not referred to in the Certificate of Lawfulness decision dated 5 November 2008 which gives the list of finally approved plans for the site. The other two plans are indicative, but are not detailed design drawings. Only 5205/a/A/7 is approved through the Planning process, in that it is contained in the Section 106 Agreement.
We hope the information provided was useful.
“Camden’s letter to Sport England of 24th July 2008 which is on the www.talacrefacts.org.uk site is shown as saying that “There will also be new, public parking provision in nearby Talacre Street for families with young children to drop-off and pick-up from the Centre. The route through Talacre Park is short, well lit and safe.
Please inform me:
(i) What you meant by “The route through Talacre Park is short, well lit and safe”, since it has for some years been closed at night (4pm in the winter).
(ii) What are the extra facilities in Talacre Street that are referred to?
Response received 1.12.09
Thank you for your enquiry dated 2 November 2008.
I have reviewed the letter to Sport England to which you refer and I would suggest that the quoted extract you refer to is not sufficiently clear. The paragraph in question refers to the information that would be provided to Talacre Sports Centre’s users regarding the access arrangements that would be in place both during and after the construction of the new development at Dalby Street. However, I think it needs to be expanded upon further to clarify what was meant. In response to your two specific queries:
i) The Temporary Access Plan for the development, which covers how access to the sports centre would be managed by the developer during construction, splits the construction works into four stages. Stage 3 of this construction would prevent any pedestrian access to the sports centre from Prince of Wales Road and pedestrians would instead be able to use routes through Talacre Gardens. As the sports centre stays open later than the Gardens, the Gardens would be kept open longer during this stage of construction. Lighting would be provided after dark and the developer would provide marshals for security. The second part of your extract from the letter refers to use of the Gardens during this stage.
ii) In June 2008, the sports centre management requested that some parking bays for users of the sports centre to be created in Talacre Road. This was agreed to be feasible before the letter to Sport England was sent, although the consultation was not carried out until November 2008. The consultation proposed conversion of eight of the under-used residents’ parking bays in Talacre Road to pay-and-display parking. The purpose of this was to provide an alternative drop-off and pick-up space for visitors to the sports centre when the new access road is in place. This would allow those arriving by car to leave the vehicle (for example, when dropping-off young children), which they would no longer be able to do in the new access road. The parking limit consulted upon was a maximum stay of 1 hour, to allow sufficient time for drop-off and pick-up of users of the centre and to ensure satisfactory turnover of use. As the development has not progressed significantly on site to date, the parking scheme and the consultation results have not yet presented to the Assistant Director of Culture and Environment (Public Realm and Sustainability) for a decision.
I trust this information is sufficient to answer your queries and apologise that the information in the letter to Sport England was not clear on these issues.
a) Please inform me who at present has authority to issue parking tickets on Dalby Street in the light of the Land Registry showing the street to be owned by Cornwall Overseas Developments Ltd of the British Virgin Islands?
Response
The Camden Council has the Authority.
(b) Please inform me as to the legal justification for the answer to (a) above.
Response
As a matter of Law, the ownership of the land is irrelevant. What matters is that the land remains a Public Highway, a legal status which is entirely separate from ownership.
The s106 agreements and access plans for the Dalby Street development 2005/4187/P require the developer / owner to employ marshals who will operate according to a defined brief.
Please advise me what authority marshals will have on areas that are not owned by the Developer / Owners such as part or all of the turning circle when the new road ³New Dalby Street² is open and it is the only vehicular route to the Sports Centre?
Response
The marshals will be acting as the agents of the Council as the landowner, and will be acting as the Council’s agents in the management of the Council’s land, with the limits of their authority as agents being defined by the terms of the Section 106 Agreement.
Sale of land Contracts and Stopping Up Order
(i) The Conditional Sale agreement for the Travellers Site and Dalby Street between Camden and TRAC Properties dated 19.4.05 included a Condition Precedent as follows:
"12 (e) The Buyer obtaining a Stopping Up Order in relation to the Unregistered Property in terms acceptable to the Buyer in its reasonable discretion ("the Stopping Up CP")
(ii) The Supplemental Contract for the same land, dated 6.7.07 contained recitals including the following:
"WHEREAS
B. The parties agree that all the Conditions Precedent to the Agreement defined as the Conditional Sale agreement of 19.4.05] have either been satisfied or wholly waived by the Buyer
C. The Buyer has applied to obtain the necessary stopping-up order in relation to the Unregistered Property [Dalby Street] and a decision in respect of the stopping-up order is anticipated shortly."
(iii) As of today (October 2009), I understand that the stopping-up order has not been made.
(a) Please advise whether condition 12 (e) of the Conditional Sale Agreement was intended to provide any protection for Camden against the land being sold and there being no stopping up order.
Response
The conditions precedent were for the benefit of the purchaser only and not for the benefit of the Council, and the purchaser therefore had the right to waive these conditions if the purchaser so chose.
(b) If the answer to (a) is "yes", then please advise how the land will be recovered in the event that the Stopping-Up order is not made.
Response
The land cannot be restored. The Executive gave authority to sell the land, both registered and unregistered parts. Under the terms of the contract, the unregistered part was required to be registered by the Council before title was transferred to the buyer, and this was done, and title was then transferred in accordance with the terms of the contract.
(c) Please advise me as to the authority that gave rise to the Unregistered Land being transferred to TRAC Properties, following its registration.
Response
Not applicable please see response to question above.
Re Obligations, risks etc related to the transfer of the existing road from Prince of Wales Road to the Leisure Centre (Dalby 5t)
This request also relates to the Dalby Street, Talacre scheme and the obligations and liabilities arising from the transfer of the existing Dalby Street to Cornwall Overseas Developments before, during construction and following completion of construction
Since early 2009, Dalby Street has been registered with the land registry as being owned by Cornwall Overseas Developments Ltd, a company registered in the British Virgin Islands. When stage 2 of the Temporary Access Plan is started, if it hasn't already done so, vehicular access to the Sports Centre will continue to be on the same road. From stage 3 onwards, access will be on New Dalby Street which will be owned by Cornwall Overseas Developments Ltd or its successors in title. Documents at the Land Registry indicate that some rights and/or obligations were retained by Camden when the transfer of title was made.
Could you inform me:
(a) Whether the background described above is accurate and if it isn't please advise in what respects it is inaccurate
Response
This question can not be considered under the Freedom of Information Act. The Freedom of Information Act 2000 grants a right of access to information held by a public authority and by virtue the opinion or interpretation of information by a Camden Officer is not information that is held by Camden.
(b) What obligations Camden had that are now the obligations of Cornwall Overseas Developments in respect of these roads
Response
This question can not be considered under the Freedom of Information Act. The Freedom of Information Act 2000 grants a right of access to information held by a public authority and by virtue the opinion or interpretation of the terms contained in the transfer document
by a Camden Officer is not information that is held by Camden.
(c) Whether any of such obligations constitute risks which were covered by Camden's insurance policies
Response
In accordance with Section 1(1) (a) of the Freedom of Information Act I am obliged to inform you that the information you requested is not held by Camden Council. I have not been in a position to locate any information relating to obligations that constituted risks which were covered by Camden's insurance policies.
(d) Whether any of such obligations constitute risks which were insurable risks but which Camden chose to “self insure”
Response
In accordance with Section 1(1) (a) of the Freedom of Information Act I am obliged to inform you that the information you requested is not held by Camden Council. I have not been in a position to locate any information relating to obligations that constitute risks which were insurable risks but which Camden chose to self insure.
(e) If the replies to (c) and (d) identify any risks, what steps has and will Camden take to ensure that Cornwall or its successors have sufficient insurance cover.
Response
Not applicable.
(f) What other obligations apart from those specified in the four access plans have been taken over
Response
An exemption under Section 21 (1) of the Act is being applied.
Section 21; Information accessible to applicant by other means
This exemption applies because information concerning any obligations taken over would be recorded in the most up to date Supplementary s106 agreement.
(g) What rights have been transferred
Response
In accordance with Section 1(1) (a) of the Freedom of Information Act I am obliged to inform you that the information you requested is not held by Camden Council. I have not been in a position to locate any information relating to what rights have been transferred.
Continuing Works Contribution
Also concerning Dalby Street, under the formula in Schedule One The Continuing Works Contribution set out in page 22 of the Supplementary s106 agreement of 30.9.08, very substantial payments can be payable by the Developer in the event of delay during Stage 3.
The risk of delay is not insignificant. For example, one of the developer's sites was closed for over 5 months, following the insolvency of the contractor. Under the formula, in theory, a delay of that length would lead him to be liable for £billions (sic) Please provide evidence of the consideration given to requiring no security for the developer's obligation to pay potentially very substantial sums as a "Continuing Works Contribution"
Response
The agreement was cleared by Counsel and he concluded that it adequately protected the Council's interests. I have not been in a position to locate any further information relating to this matter.
Response (which includes request)
“I refer to your enquiry dated 24.3.10 regarding measurements for the Dalby Street proposed development.
The measurements given below are taken from the approved set of plans for the Certificate of Lawfulness application ref 2008/3688/P, which you can verify for yourself from plans held on the Council's website.
The information requested is as follows:
A. distance between park fence and column= 0.2m
B. width of column= 0.4m
C. distance between column and building= 2.1m
D. height of column below Y-fork, ie. before main column splits into 2 sideways columns= ranges from 2.3m at northern end column to 2.7m at southern end column".
1. Please provide me with the following information concerning the provision of parking for blue badged vehicles on the new proposed access to the Talacre Sports Centre:
a) Number of Spaces?
b) Any restrictions which prevent their use by residents of the 55 flats and their visitors?
c) Who will be responsible for preventing their misuse, what authority will they have and how will they be able to fulfil their responsibilities?
Response
The scheme will include three parking spaces for blue-badge holders. To ensure a turnover of use it is proposed to place a time limit on them and currently 2 hours is being discussed. Any holder of a valid blue badge would be able to use the spaces, whether visiting the sports centre, doctor’s surgery or an occupant of the flats. The marshal will be responsible for and will have the authority to manage the parking at the site. The method of enforcement should the duration overstay the time limit permissible is yet to be agreed, but will be approved by the Council.
2. Please provide me with the approved scheme for CCTV which is described in para 8 of Schedule Four 'The Agreed Pedestrian Access Plan' of the s106 agreement, as follows:
'8. That CCTV shall be incorporated in order to maximise pedestrian safety in accordance with a scheme submitted to and approved by the Council. This CCTV shall be of a standard approved by the Council and shall be maintained by the Owner in full working order in strict accordance with the details approved by the Council.'
Response
In accordance with Regulation 12(4)(a), which states a public authority may refuse to disclose information to the extent that it does not hold the information when the applicants request is received. I am obliged to inform you that the information you requested is not held by Camden Council. A scheme for CCTV has yet to be submitted to the Council. This will need to be approved before occupation of the development.
In accordance with the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 this correspondence acts as a Public Interest Refusal Notice.
3. Please inform me as what procedure, if any, will be in place to prevent ambulances going to and from the Sports Centre from getting stuck in the 50m stretch of the new access road which is understood to be only 4.8m wide.
Response
The new access road will be wide enough for an ambulance to pass most of the traffic that would access the sports centre regularly. In the event of an ambulance being called the sport centre staff and the traffic marshals will communicate to ensure safe and effective emergency vehicle access. Operational procedures relating to the control of traffic and notification of emergency vehicles will be agreed between the Centre and marshals, and there will be regular programmed meetings to review and resolve any issues to ensure effective procedures are in place for emergency vehicle access.
A freedom of information request about the Dalby Street development. The Pedestrian Access Plan requires CCTV in accordance with a scheme to be submitted to and approved by the Council. Please send me the approved details of this scheme.
Your request has now been considered however in accordance with Section 1(1) (a) of the Freedom of Information Act I am obliged to inform you that the information you requested is not held by Camden Council. A scheme for CCTV has yet to be submitted to the Council. This will need to be approved before occupation of the development.
I apologise that your request cannot be met but if you have any further information needs in the future then please contact us.
My enquiry relates to the closing of Dalby St and start of Stage 3 of the Construction timetable. On or about 10.6.12, Dalby Street was closed for access to the Talacre Leisure Centre.
According to Schedule 2 Temporary Access Plan, Clause 20 of the Supplementary Section 106 agreement, the closing of Dalby Street marks the start of Stage 3 which cannot start "until the Council has given written approval that the Permanent Access Way has been constructed to a standard that would permit free and unimpeded access to a reasonable standard."
1. Please provide me with a copy of the above approval.
2. Please inform me as to the date on which Stage 3 started.
I write in regards to your request for information received on 23rd July 2012. Your request has been considered, however we are unable to provide all of the information within the 20 working days time scale as defined by the Environmental Information Regulations 2004.
We will need a further 20 working days to gather all of the information that you have asked for. This is due to the difficulty that we are experiencing in collating the information that you have requested.
Under regulation 7 of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004, the public authority may extend the period of 20 working days to 40 working days if it reasonably believes that the complexity and volume of the information requested means that it is impracticable either to comply with the request within the earlier period or to make a decision to refuse to do so.
You will receive a full response to your request, within 20 working days from 17th August 2012 (the day that your response was originally due) as defined by the Environmental Information Regulations 2004.
Response
I have been informed by the relevant officer that it was agreed in advance of the completion of the surfacing works to the access road that the switchover would be on 11 June 2012. It was also agreed that the full extent of the access road would not be handed over initially, as the developer needed to complete piling for the new building’s foundations. However, the remaining road would be constructed to a reasonable standard and would provide free and unimpeded access to the sports centre. The developer agreed to provide an additional marshal to assist in the area of the partially accessible turning circle area. The access road surfacing was completed the weekend before the switchover (9/10 June) and the Council’s works to resurface Prince of Wales Road were programmed for the same weekend to coincide with that. The satisfactory completion of the available section of the access road was approved on site on 10 June, but I regret there is no letter confirming this in accordance with the referenced Clause 20 of Temporary Access Plan of the Section 106 Agreement. In accordance with Regulation 12(4)(a), which states a public authority may refuse to disclose information to the extent that it does not hold the information when the applicants request is received. I am obliged to inform you that the information you requested is not held by Camden Council.
2. Please inform me as to the date on which Stage 3 started.
Response
Dalby Street (carriageway and eastern footway) was closed and the access road opened on 11 June 2012. This marked the commencement of Stage 3 of construction, as defined in the Temporary Access Plan within the Section 106 Agreement. The western footway was closed on 28 July 2012.
In accordance with the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 this correspondence acts as a partial Public Interest Refusal Notice.
This request concerns the construction activity at Dalby Street, Talacre.
Please provide me with the agreement under which the contractor is and has been permitted since June 2012 to occupy space owned by Camden and intended according to the s106 agreement of 30th September 2008 to be in use as the southern part of the turning circle and for three disabled parking bays required under that s106 agreement
Response
In response to the information that you have requested please see the attached documents. [The two documents referred to and the complete FoI request, follow up and responses are on a separate PdF file which is linked here - "Occupied Area ..." for ease of reference]
Follow Up Request for Clarification
I acknowledge receipt of your response of 28th September 2012 to my information request ref 8018081 and herewith request clarification.
My request referred to all the area occupied by the contractor. However, the Licence and Deed of Rectification which you sent only covered a small part of the area that has been occupied. No mention is made of the area between the hatched area and the south part of the turning circle shown on the plan. That area is understood also to be owned by Camden.
Could you confirm that that area has been occupied without Camden’s consent or provide me with the agreement which allows the contractor to occupy it?
Response to Request for Clarification
In response to your e-mail of the 30th September 2012, I have been informed that "The area occupied by the developer beyond the area of the licence referred to has been occupied without the Council’s permission. The developer has been instructed to clear it and this is currently on-going."
I trust that this answers your query.
[See also 48B (e)]
This concerns the Cash Deposit referred to in Clauses 2.8, 4.18 and 4.19 of the Supplementary s106 agreement dated 30.9.08 for the Dalby Street, Talacre development.
Please inform me:
1. Whether, in the event of a drawing being made on the Cash Deposit, there will be an obligation to replenish it?
Response
There is no obligation to replenish the Cash Deposit in the event of the need to draw upon it.
2. If there is such an obligation and any of the following have an interest in the land at the time - the developer, owners of long-term leases, freeholder(s), a Registered Social Landlord and the renter of the commercial area - from which of those would Camden be entitled to seek recovery?
Response
N/a
Thank you for your response to my request 8043912. In the light of what you say, I need to ask whether, if the Owner and successors to title such as leaseholders fail to provide the marshals, Camden has the right to recover the costs of providing them without first exhausting the Cash Deposit?
Response
The Council has secured the Cash Deposit as an ‘insurance’ against the owner or his successors in title failing to provide a marshal service as obliged by the Section 106 Agreement. The Council could therefore draw upon the cash deposit in the event of any default against the obligation. However, there are also a number of other potential remedies available to the Council in the event of the owner or his successors in title failing to provide a marshal service. These include remedies under clause 4.15, 4.23 and 4.25 of the Section 106 Agreement. The Council would need to assess at the time of any breach which remedy would be the most appropriate to seek, based on the circumstances at that time.
(In effect a follow up to 45 but treated as a separate FoI request
I shall be grateful if you would clarify an aspect of the situation that arises as a result of your response to my request 7918152 where you informed me that Stage 3 as defined in Clause 20 of the Temporary Access Plan started on 11th June 2012. Stage 3 is understood to be the period between the closing of Dalby Street and the opening of the pedestrian route on the west side of the new development.
Clause 4.9 of the Supplementary s106 agreement states that the developer has the obligation “In the event of Stage 3 taking more than 60 working days to complete from the commencement of Stage 3 to pay the Continuing Works Contribution to the Council in accordance with the Continuing Works Formula (all monies falling due as part of the Continuing Works Contribution to be paid to the Council within seven days of the date the liability to pay such money arises)”.
Since the 60 days referred to expired on or about 4th September, amounts have become due and I shall be grateful if you would inform me as to approximately how much has fallen due at or around the date of this request, how much has been paid and how it has been paid.
Response
When drafting the Section 106 Agreement, the intention behind imposing a 60 working day limit on Stage 3 was to minimise pedestrian disruption with regard to access to the Talacre Sports Centre. The developer occupied Dalby Street on 11 June 2012, which marked the commencement of Stage 3 in accordance with the strict interpretation of the definition in the Section 106 Agreement. However, the footpath providing pedestrian access to the sports centre was kept open until 28 July 2012. The Council has to be reasonable in its approach to enforcing against the S106 and, in the spirit of the original intention of the agreement, it was agreed that the 60-day limit, and hence the Continuing Work Contribution calculation, would be based on the path closure date, being the full closure of Dalby Street. The on-going Works Contribution therefore applies from 23 October 2012 (accounting for the Summer Bank Holiday in August). No Continuing Works Contribution has yet been paid and the amount due will be calculated upon the path re-opening.
This request follows on from my earlier requests of 23.4.12 and 15.10.12 concerning Stage 3 of the Temporary Access Plan for Dalby St, Talacre and the Continuing Works Contribution.
(a). Since the footpath has been opened could you inform me whether all Stage 3 works have been completed.
Response
The works for Stage 3 have been completed to the Council's reasonable satisfaction. Outstanding works include the installation of bollards around the turning circle, which are under review at the Council's request. If the need for them arises, which it has not to date, they could still be installed. The developer has also not completed all the works to the building elevation immediately adjacent to the footpath, which comprises installation of doors and windows. This was not a defined perquisite for completion of Stage 3 of the Temporary Access Plan in the S106, but was deemed necessary to comply with the council's reasonable satisfaction that works were complete and the footpath could be opened. We are assured that this remaining work can be carried out from the inside of the building without the need to occupy the footpath again in the future. However, we have kept the calculation on the on-going Works Contribution open in case they do need to close the footway to complete any of this work.
(b). If they have been completed, please:
(i). Inform me as to the amount of the Continuing Works Contribution
Response
The Continuing Works Contribution has been calculated at £38,000.
(ii). Confirm that the amount has been fully paid
Response
The sum has not been paid, but will instead be deducted from another contribution that is now due to be repaid (the Security Marshalling Costs).
(iii). Confirm that the Additional Security per clause 2.2 amounting to £100,000 plus interest remains available as security for the Owner’s obligations until the defined Permanent Access Way Completion Date.
Response
The Additional Security remains available.
I refer to your response to my request 8217355 and shall be grateful if you would advise on these aspects of the construction work which should have been completed in Stage 3 yet are incomplete (or, as in the first case, require correction):
(a). The four columns are positioned wrongly and need to be moved substantially closer to the fence line in order to comply with the planning approval and to reduce the area not visible to those walking along the footway – a very important consideration in the access plans.
Response
The ‘Y’ columns are considered complete in the context of Stage 3 of construction, allowing the new footpath to be opened to the public. However, as you note, they are not in the position shown on the drawings submitted to Planning and for which planning permission was granted. This has been assessed on site and it is considered that the minor repositioning of the columns warrants an application to regularise it by means of a Minor Material Amendment (MMA) to the original permission. The developer has been written to and advised to submit such an application. The MMA application will enable the repositioned columns to be formally assessed and consulted upon and then a decision can be made on whether or not they can be given retrospective permission.
(b). The blue badged parking area which should accommodate three vehicles, contains scaffolding and therefore does not conform to requirements. While three medium or small cars can just fit into the spaces, the ability of disabled people to get into and out of them is reduced.
Response
The three blue-badge holder bays are marked out in their permanent arrangement and are also considered complete in the context of Stage 3 of construction. The bay adjacent to the new footpath will in future benefit from the additional space adjacent to it provided by the footpath, but as you note, in the temporary arrangement there is scaffolding up to the kerb line. This affects one bay, but it is still accessible and is wider than a standard parking bay. The scaffold should be removed within six months.
(c). Pedestrians walking out of the footpath at the Sports Centre end have no vision or warning of the road and turning circle ahead of them. Also, visitors leaving the Sports Centre or the park have no notice or restriction preventing them from walking into the turning circle and road. It is noticeable that children and parents treat the area as if it were all pedestrianised. Appropriate street furniture (in addition to the bollards to which reference was made) is needed.
Response
Vehicular use of the turning circle is low and speeds are very low, so it is possible, with due care, for pedestrians to use any of the turning circle/blue-badge parking area in reasonable safety. However, the marked and raised crossing via the centre of the turning circle is the most direct route between the footpath and the sports centre entrance. There should not be a need for pedestrians to use more of the area than that, unless coming and going to parked or waiting vehicles. Your point about the visibility is noted and how this can be improved is being discussed with the developer. As the issue relates to a temporary situation, it would not be necessary to introduce additional street furniture to restrict pedestrian movement.
(d). The bollard shown in the drawings at the southern end of the footpath has not been installed. Cyclists have been observed cycling along the footpath.
Response
The bollard was indicated on the drawings as a measure to prevent vehicles from using the footpath, but would not physically prevent cyclists. Similarly to the bollards at the turning circle to which you make reference above, this is under review at the Council's request. If the need for it arises, which it has not to date, it could still be installed.
I refer to responses to my FoI requests 8018081 (including your email of 1.10.12) and 8217355. [See 46 above]
(e)The former confirmed that an area which was owned by Camden and required to be available for three disabled bays was occupied by the contractor. It was wrongly occupied for at least 20 weeks. Please confirm that appropriate recompense has been sought for the lack of amenity experienced by the public and, if it is not commercially confidential, please provide me with details.
Response
The developer was charged an additional sum for the occupation of the Council’s land beyond the Hut licence period. The developer had to occupy other Council land in order to comply with its legal obligation with the Council to construct the access road divert services and construct the disabled bays and was not charged for this. The developer was requested to remove building materials not connected to the construction of the access road, diversion of utilities and disabled bays that were placed on the Councils land outside the licence area and complied with this request shortly afterwards. As you have stated in your question above, it is considered that the licence sums received are commercially sensitive and for that reason we are withholding that information under section 12 (5) (e) of the Environmental Information Regulations, which states:
a public authority may refuse to disclose information to the extent that its disclosure would adversely affect the confidentiality of commercial or industrial information where such confidentiality is provided by law to protect a legitimate economic interest.
We have decided not to release this information because this sum was agreed by both parties, it is considered that the release of this information would breach the level of confidentially that is applicable.
We believe that release of this information would be prejudicial to the public interest for the following reasons:
Public interest reasons for disclosure are that the release of this information would improve the transparency of the Council and the decisions it takes.
Public interest reasons against disclosure:
It is felt that if the Council were to disclose this information into the public domain, this could have a detrimental effect on our ability to function in an environment where a level of confidentiality is required.
In all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exception outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.
This correspondence acts a partial public interest refusal notice.
reference: 8193835
Please could you inform me as to the rights of pedestrians and cyclists to use the road which has replaced Dalby Street at the Talacre Community Sports Centre?
If there is any restriction on the normal right to walk and cycle that would exist on any public road, please inform me as to which of the total area – road, roundabout and disabled parking area is restricted.
Response
The road that has replaced Dalby Street is a private road and as such rights of way that would apply to public highways do not apply here. However, the Paramount Objective as set out in the Section 106 Agreement dated 30 September 2008 (clause 2.20) secures for the public at large safe and commodious access to and from the sports centre over the new road and footpath (the Permanent and Pedestrian Access Ways). In turn, the Permanent Access Plan (Schedule 3) secures vehicular access (which would include cycles) over the Permanent Access Way and the Pedestrian Access Plan (Schedule 4) secures pedestrian access over the Pedestrian Access Way. The extent of the Permanent and Pedestrian Access Ways are shown on Plan 2 in the S106, shaded red and blue respectively.
In line with regulation 6(1) of the Act I can inform you that these agreements are publicly available documents.
Yr. Ref: 8193835)
[A follow up]
The response I have received appears not have addressed the substance of my question which is as to whether or not, if someone wishes to, they have a right to walk along the road. Because there have been recent reports of people being told by marshals that it is illegal for them to do so (rather than it being inadvisable) and because a notice appeared (since removed) saying that pedestrians were not permitted to use the road, doubt has been expressed as to the legal situation. It will be seen not only as an important matter of principle should a pedestrian right of passage not exist but also a practical matter since there are bound to be occasions when individuals are unhappy about using the walkway. Perhaps they can see a group of people hanging around or someone they believe looks a threat or they have a reason to want to avoid someone living in the affordable flats. Anyone who has hesitated before walking through an unfamiliar housing estate will understand this point.
Already, instances have arisen where walking on the vehicular road takes place and cycling on the walkway occurs. The general public deserves clear-cut and legally informed guidance on issues of rights. Where is it?
Until recently it has as far as one knows, never been suggested that pedestrians would not be able to walk if the so wished down the whole of this road ie from the Prince of Wales Road junction to the turning circle. References to the situation can be found here:
1. Inspector’s Report following the public enquiry
P8. 4.3. (The Case for Camden) “The access road would be privately owned but with public rights of access to the Sports Centre...”
P30. 7.26. (Conclusions, Cyclist Access) “At such low speeds, it seems to me that cyclists could choose to cycle or dismount when using the new access, as well as being able to dismount and use the pedestrian walkway ...”
2. Camden’s QC’s Closing Submission at the public enquiry (AP20)
“16. The objectors have tended to concentrate on the assumption that pedestrians will do what the layout will clearly deter them from doing and walk along the access road. It is possible somebody may choose to do so. Given the location of the doorway to the Sports Centre there is no obvious saving of distance in doing so even if coming along Prince of Wales Road from the east (see AP4)”
“17. .... The mere fact that it is possible that someone may chose to walk along a road designed for vehicles and without footways should not be given great weight because arrangements cannot cater for those who choose to act in an ornery way.”
3. Below is part of an FoI response which asked about the parking ticketing on old Dalby St. Is it relevant to New Dalby St or did Camden lose the Public Highway status as well as the legal ownership status?
“b) Please inform me as to the legal justification for the answer to (a) above.
Response
As a matter of Law, the ownership of the land is irrelevant. What matters is that the land remains a Public Highway, a legal status which is entirely separate from ownership”
4. Extract from Planning report PDU/1697/01 of 9.7.2007 of Mayor of London:
“26 ... Notwithstanding this requirement, the current s106 does not formally secure public right of way over the new road, in perpetuity. The Council has advised that it intends to enter into a s106 agreement with the developer to ensure this is secured. These two points are intended to be included within the same agreement.”
This was also Appendix A of the Mayor’s letter of 4.12.08. That letter included “18. The Permanent Access Plan sets out to secure permanent access rights to the sports centre by securing a private road with public right of way...”
Response
Further to your e-mail of 10th January 2013, I have discussed the issues that you raised with the relevant officers and the following response has been formulated in reply:
As set out in the response dated 7 January, the road that has replaced Dalby Street is a private road and as such rights of way that would apply to public highways do not apply here. The Section 106 Agreement dated 30 September 2008 instead secures for the public at large safe and commodious access to and from the sports centre over the new road and footpath. There is no restriction in the Section 106 Agreement that would explicitly prohibit pedestrians from walking along the access road, but it would not be advisable for road safety reasons. As such the Council would not promote the access road as a route for pedestrians to use. Under the provisions the Traffic Marshalling Brief, during stage 3 and 4 of construction (when the access road is narrowed by hoarding), the marshal is required to ensure that pedestrians are not permitted to use the access road and is required to direct them to the provided pedestrian route instead.
I trust that this response provides a full reply to your query.
In answer to your FOI request dated 15 January:
1. 1. Please provide me with the approved CCTV scheme referred to in the Pedestrian Access Plan in the s106 agreement for the development at Talacre, now known as Prince’s Park. It says that the plan has to be submitted and approved by the Council.
2. 2. Please also inform me at what point the mirrors along this footpath will be installed in accordance with the letter of 11.6.13 sent to various Councillors and widely distributed following the discovery that the columns had been placed differently from where they were planned at the time of the legal agreement.
Responses
Having consulted with relevant services and officers the answer is:
1. 1. We do not currently hold this information. We are expecting to receive the proposed CCTV plan imminently and will look at the proposals and suggest any changes if necessary. Depending on the size, location and number of cameras this may require planning permission, which the developers have been advised of. The developer had, until last week, scaffolding over the pedestrian path and had a temporary system of CCTV. This temporary CCTV has been relocated on the building so coverage is still in place, pending submission and approval of their permanent proposals.
2. 2. We do not currently hold this information. These don’t specifically require our approval, but the developer has informed us that the contractor has the mirrors on site and has been liaising with our Engineering Service on this and other highway related matters. The mirrors should be erected in the next week.
27.5.14
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.
Date: 27 May 2014.
Our Reference: 9373105
Enquiries to: Peter Williams
Our reference: 9371017. 27.5.14
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000 - INFORMATION REQUEST
Thank you for your recent Freedom of Information request received on 29 April 2014
You requested information on:
Public Liability insurance cover around the Talacre Leisure Centre from the time the Council issues the written notice referred to in the second paragraphs of the Permanent and Pedestrian Access Plans of the 30.9.08 Supplementary s106 agreement.
1. Please inform me as to the extent to which the public visiting the Talacre Leisure Centre via the new access road, pedestrian footway and the area outside the entrance, (whether or not owned by Camden), will be covered by public liability insurance.
Response
As the access road is not public highway and the Council is not responsible for its maintenance, the responsibility for maintaining public liability insurance sits with owner of Prince’s Place (‘the Owner’, as defined the Section 106 agreement dated 30 September 2008). This applies to the full extent of the Permanent and Pedestrian Access Ways as defined in the S106, whether over land owned by the developer or by Camden. This responsibility forms part of the general obligations in respect of Dalby Street placed on the Owner by the S106 to:
(i) give full effect to the overriding requirement to secure the “Paramount Objective”, which is to safeguard secure and guarantee public amenity and safe free marshalled properly maintained and commodious access for the public at large to the Leisure Centre, and in particular over the new permanent access road and pedestrian access way;
(ii) ensure that Dalby Street is maintained in a safe and useable condition for both vehicular and pedestrian use both from the date of the making of the stopping up orders to when the new road is built and after completion of the new Permanent Access Way and Pedestrian Access Way.
The Owner will be responsible for insuring against any risks both during the construction works and thereafter once when the development is completed.
2. To the extent that primary responsibility for maintaining this cover does not fall on the Council yet the Council has a duty of care to visitors to the Leisure Centre and the Town Green using these areas, please inform me as to how Camden will ensure that the policy cannot be invalidated as a result of incomplete information being provided to insurers. For example, such information would need to include the lay-out of the area including the width of the road, the marshalling regime, the number of current and potential future users of these areas and their modes of transport.
Response
The primary responsibility for maintaining the insurance cover sits with the Owner, as set out in the answer to your first question above. Public Liability Insurance provides full cover, regardless of the road’s design, management or maintenance. If a claim were to arise that were attributable to any of these factors, and negligence on behalf of the Owner was proven, then the Owner’s insurance policy would provide cover.
3. Please inform me as to the conditions that apply to such public liability cover and inform me as to what procedures Camden will have in order to ensure compliance.
Response
The conditions that apply to the insurance are as set out in the answer to your first question above. Under the terms of the S106 Agreement the Council may request sight of the developer insurance at any time. The current insurance is in place until 17 November 2014 and covers up to £10 million for any one occurrence.
4. Please inform me as to what public liability cover applies to the area surrounding the junction of the Permanent and Pedestrian access ways and the Prince of Wales footway and carriageway.
Response
The junction and Prince of Wales Road are Public Highway and are Camden’s responsibility. Camden’s own public liability insurance therefore applies. There is no gap between the Council’s cover and the developer’s.
Yours faithfully, Stefano Pelizza, Senior Service Programmer
From: Peter G Cuming <pgcuming@gmail.com>
Date: 20 June 2014 14:01:29 GMT+01:00
To: Mike Cooke <mike.cooke@camden.gov.uk>
Subject: FOI Request
PUBLIC LIABILITY
1. Q. Please inform me as to the extent to which the public visiting the Talacre Leisure Centre via the new access road, pedestrian footway and the area outside the entrance, (whether or not owned by Camden), will be covered by public liability insurance.
R. As the access road is not public highway and the Council is not responsible for its maintenance, the responsibility for maintaining public liability insurance sits with owner of Prince’s Place (‘the Owner’, as defined the Section 106 agreement dated 30 September 2008). This applies to the full extent of the Permanent and Pedestrian Access Ways as defined in the S106, whether over land owned by the developer or by Camden. This responsibility forms part of the general obligations in respect of Dalby Street placed on the Owner by the S106 to:
(i) give full effect to the overriding requirement to secure the “Paramount Objective”, which is to safeguard secure and guarantee public amenity and safe free marshalled properly maintained and commodious access for the public at large to the Leisure Centre, and in particular over the new permanent access road and pedestrian access way;
(ii) ensure that Dalby Street is maintained in a safe and useable condition for both vehicular and pedestrian use both from the date of the making of the stopping up orders to when the new road is built and after completion of the new Permanent Access Way and Pedestrian Access Way.
The Owner will be responsible for insuring against any risks both during the construction works and thereafter once when the development is completed.
F. At present “the Owner” is Cornwall Overseas Developments Ltd, owned by Findon Urban Lofts Ltd who has sold the Freehold to a BVI company with completion able to be at any time from now. As the building becomes occupied as a result of the private leaseholders, RSL and NHS completing their contracts, “the Owner”, (based upon what was said by the two QCs at the public enquiry) becomes the Freeholder, each of the private leaseholders, the RSL and the NHS ie about 38 parties. Costs and risks related to the area that is the subject of this FoI request have been established as not being payable by the affordable flats ie the RSL. We believe it would be ultra vires for them to be paid by the GP practice ie the NHS. Given this context, how does the Council intend to ensure the appropriate PL policy is in place?
2. Q. To the extent that primary responsibility for maintaining this cover does not fall on the Council yet the Council has a duty of care to visitors to the Leisure Centre and the Town Green using these areas, please inform me as to how Camden will ensure that the policy cannot be invalidated as a result of incomplete information being provided to insurers. For example, such information would need to include the lay-out of the area including the width of the road, the marshalling regime, the number of current and potential future users of these areas and their modes of transport.
R. The primary responsibility for maintaining the insurance cover sits with the Owner, as set out in the answer to your first question above. Public Liability Insurance provides full cover, regardless of the road’s design, management or maintenance. If a claim were to arise that were attributable to any of these factors, and negligence on behalf of the Owner was proven, then the Owner’s insurance policy would provide cover.
F. I was referring to the PL cover post completion. The existing cover is likely to be one that is appropriate for construction projects. It was also about the information supplied by the “owner” to the insurer based on which the insurer will write what will be likely to be a custom made policy since the post completion situation contains unique risks which have to be “managed”. Your response addresses the situation if the insured fails to fulfil obligations – not if it is invalid as a result of inadequate information being supplied. An insurer is responsible for the results to a 3rd party of a dangerous driver but not if that driver has insured a Ford and is driving a Jaguar. Perhaps I can rephrase my question helpfully! “Will Camden seek advice from an independent insurance expert, provided with all the relevant data affecting risks, to confirm that the PL policy in place from the time the road is open and the building occupied fully protects members of the public using the Access ways.”
3. Q. Please inform me as to the conditions that apply to such public liability cover and inform me as to what procedures Camden will have in order to ensure compliance.
R. The conditions that apply to the insurance are as set out in the answer to your first question above. Under the terms of the S106 Agreement the Council may request sight of the developer insurance at any time. The current insurance is in place until 17 November 2014 and covers up to £10 million for any one occurrence.
F. With occupation expected at any time ie following Camden’s signing off of the Access ways, the current insurance would need to be fundamentally changed since the risks will be substantially different eg no marshal at the Prince of Wales Road junction, the basement car park which opens onto the permanent access way open, occupation of all flats, use of the medical centre by patients, staff and arrival etc of ambulances and so on. Hence my question concerns the post construction period.
4. Q. Please inform me as to what public liability cover applies to the area surrounding the junction of the Permanent and Pedestrian access ways and the Prince of Wales footway and carriageway.
R. The junction and Prince of Wales Road are Public Highway and are Camden’s responsibility. Camden’s own public liability insurance therefore applies. There is no gap between the Council’s cover and the developer’s.
17.7.14 Reference 9501142
1. Freedom of Information request re 2005/4187/P- Dalby Street Marshalling Contract,
I refer to the “Prince’s Park” development at Dalby St, Prince of Wales Road.
According to 4.20 of the s106 agreement, prior to the flats and commercial area being
occupied there must be a contract securing the provision of marshalling services
place for at least 3 years. Details of this were included in document AP19 submitted
to the public enquiry held in January 2008 and the anticipated annual cost at that
time was shown as in the order of £83,000 pa.
Please could you provide me with a copy of the agreement?
Bearing in mind that the marshalling company, Intredis, that was employed by the
developer went into liquidation with unpaid wages, please confirm that this contract
is prepaid and how its performance is satisfactorily guaranteed.
Response
The developer is in the process of negotiating a contract to secure the marshal service and
the Council has fed into that process. The obligation is not yet signed-off as the Council has
not had sight of a signed final version of the contract. At the current stage of development,
the contract would be for an initial 3-year period and the duties required of the marshal
would correspond with those set out in the Section 106 Agreement.
The contract would also contain underperformance clauses that would enable the contract
to be terminated if necessary.
17.7.14 Reference 9501142
2. Freedom of Information request re 2005/4187/P- Dalby Street –compensation for
illegal occupation of Disabled Parking area
I understand that an area of land intended for disabled parking was illegally
appropriated by the developer for several months during the construction of this
development.
Please confirm that payment has been received by way of recompense by Camden,
inform me as to the amount and what if any restrictions exist as to its use.
Response
The developer was charged an additional sum for the occupation of the Council’s land
beyond the Site Hut licence period. The developer had to occupy other Council land in
order to comply with its legal obligation with the Council to construct the access road, divert
services and construct the disabled bays and was not charged for this. The developer was
requested to remove building materials not connected to the construction of the access
road, diversion of utilities and disabled bays that were placed on the Councils land outside
the licence area and complied with this request shortly afterwards. The licence sums
received are commercially sensitive and monies received have been allocated to the
Council’s Parks and Open Spaces budget.
We hope that the information is useful to you.