Fenland District Council to relax archaeological planning regulations

[Jack]

I feel we should have a regular Digging the Dirt section... for our very own Private Eye ---

That would be nice........but would we be able to name or shame individuals or companies...................?

[BAJR]

Good point... it would have to be within teh AUP. so therefore would have to pass by me first. perhaps the best thing to do is just let Digging the Dirt continue as a masked digger. and keep an eye on them/him/her

:face-huh:

[BAJR]

http://www.petitionbuzz.com/petitions/su...nsheritage

Don't forget. only a few hundred more sigs needed! :face-approve:

[BAJR]

Well...Well...Well

I never expected this.

Theresults of my FOI request as in

[FONT=&quot]Our ref: FOI/1360 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]22 July 2011[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Your ref: [/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]Dear Mr Connolly [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Freedom of Information Act 2000 - Information Request No: 1360[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Original request:[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]After the recent comments by Alan Melton regarding the relaxation of conservation rules and archaeological commitments during planning/construction I am concerned at what this statement represents and where it may originate.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Please provide details of any lobbying that has been undertaken either in favour or against the newly relaxed regulations.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Please also describe any legal ramifications that have been considered in relation to the legality of this position within the framework of current British and European law. Including the PPS5 and local plan.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I would most like to view any correspondence electronic or otherwise from either Cllr Melton or Cllr Chambers (who I note is himself a developer) that contain the words archaeology/archaeological/heritage or bunny huggers over the past year.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Original response:[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Further to your comments in regard to the Leader of Fenland District Council's speech on archaeological works, please find enclosed a statement from the Leader in regard to this matter.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]In response to the statement you asked that we fully process your request; therefore, please see below a detailed response to the points raised.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Q: Please provide details of any lobbying that has been undertaken either in favour or against the newly relaxed regulations.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]A: No lobbying has taken place with regard to current regulations regarding archaeological matters.[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]Q: Please describe any legal ramifications that have been considered in relation to the legality of this position within the framework of current British and European law. Including the PPS5and local plan.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]A: Legal advice has been produced in respect of the Leader’s speech. The content of that advice is protected by legal Professional Privilege. Information subject to legal Professional Privilege may be excluded from release by virtue of section 42 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Before determining that such an exclusion is relevant, consideration has to be given to the public interest. Whilst there is a significant interest in understanding the legality or otherwise of any given statement in a planning context, equally there is a countervailing argument that individuals and organisations should be in a position to receive and consider legal advice in private in order that this advice can shape future decisions. It must also be noted in this context that there have been indications that future decisions of the authority could be legally challenged, the advice given whilst on the basis of principals is directly relevant to the defence of legal challenge to decisions about archaeological matters. Accordingly having considered the balance of the public interest test and in light of the circumstances above whist there is a significant argument for the release of the information currently it is felt that the balance falls on the side of withholding the specific legal advice given. Accordingly the legal advice is withheld according to the principals of section 42 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Q: I would most like to view any correspondence electronic or otherwise from either Cllr Melton or Cllr Chambers (who I note is himself a developer) that contain the words archaeology/archaeological/heritage or bunny huggers over the past year.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]A: We hold no information which is relevant to this request. Please note that the Freedom of Information Act only applies to information held by the Authority and not to that held by individual politicians. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The Council regrets that it is unable to fully meet your request for information on this occasion. You have a right of appeal against this decision. In the first instance, this appeal must be internal and a copy of the complaints procedure is enclosed. It is hoped that you will not feel it necessary to invoke an appeal, however, if you do, every care will be taken to re-assess your request and provide you with the findings.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]If you require any further information regarding your request, you should contact the Corporate Support Team at Fenland District Council or e-mail xxx@xxxxxxx.xxx.xx . [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Yours sincerely[/FONT]



[FONT=&quot]Corporate Support Team[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Enc[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Data Protection Act 1998[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]To provide you with our services we will need to record personal information, such as your name and address. This information will be kept securely and only accessed by approved staff. We will not share your information with anyone else without first telling you. If you would like more details about how we protect personal information then please contact our Data Protection Officer.[/FONT]

[BAJR]

What we can read from this... is that the Authority is suggesting that the Leader of a Council can make remarks about the direction of the Council and how it will deal with planning in the future but this is not information that the authority has any note of-

[FONT="]We hold no information which is relevant to this request. Please note that the Freedom of Information Act only applies to information held by the Authority and not to that held by individual politicians. [/FONT]

and that individual politicians can hide what they are up to. and also that they are preparing for legal challenges in the future.

"[FONT="]It must also be noted in this context that there have been indications that future decisions of the authority could be legally challenged, the advice given whilst on the basis of principals is directly relevant to the defence of legal challenge to decisions about archaeological matters."[/FONT]

Should I challenge?


[FONT=&quot][/FONT]

[BAJR]

I need help with this... please look at my quick reply and comment on better wording and or additions.

Dear Fenland District Council,

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

I am writing to request an internal review of Fenland District Council's handling of my FOI request 'Details of Alan Meltons connections between archaeology and development'.



I was sorry to see that the requested information was not forthcoming. It is obvious that legal advice has been received and you agree yourself that this FOI is within the public interest but seem to be holding information that is prepared for legal challenge to actions on future archaeological works (or refusal).

I am also concerned about this statement a well.

"We hold no information which is relevant to this request. Please note that the Freedom of Information Act only applies to information held by the Authority and not to that held by individual politicians."

I find this disingenuous, given that Cllr Melton was speaking as Leader of the Fenland Council and relating actions that he intended to enact within the Council Planning Policy.

His exact statement (and within it clearly states this is a policy statement) "This is my first major policy speech "

"I can announce tonight, that from the 1st July. A requirement for an archaeological dig/survey will not be required. The requirement will no longer feature at pre-app. Or form part of the committee agenda.

With one exception, in local known historical areas, such as next to a 1000 year old church.

Common sense will prevail. Neale Wade springs to mind.

The bunny huggers won’t like this, but if they wish to inspect a site, they can do it when the footings are being dug out."

This is clearly a policy statement and I find it impossible to comprehend that the Leader of Fenland Council has not discussed this with other council members within the normal protocol of council business. Your response suggests that this was the action of an individual, rather than a prepared council policy - in which case either; Cllr Melton's speech was inaccurate and the authority had no prior knowledge of his intentions OR the Authority carries out dramatic policy changes which are potentially illegal without the proper consultation required.

I will appeal this refusal as there is clearly a reasonable grounds for a transparent answer.

with kind regards.

David Connolly



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

Yours faithfully,

David Connolly

[Devillish Advocate]

I certainly see no reason not to challenge. Their response is standard bureaucratic stonewalling and obfuscation.

With regards to your response, there is a minor typo on the 4th paragraph: "a" should be "as" I believe.

With regard to the refusal to publish correspondence, their argument seems to be that councillor's private emails are not subject to FOI, and as such they have no correspondence to show you. The policy was presumably discussed at a number of meetings, assuming for now your scenarios of capricious dictatorship by Councillor Melton are actually wrong, and the minutes of those meetings should be obtainable under FOI. I seriously doubt the information you're hoping to find will be in them, minutes being notoriously easy to manipulate, and I'm sure we've all attended meetings where someone has given one explanation "for the minutes" and another off the record.

Got to be worth poking them anyway, just to see what happens.

[Oxbeast]

I'm always being told that there is no such thing as a personal email sent on a work computer, and all emails are subject to FoI. Emails might be more interesting than minutes which can be redacted.

[Sparky]

YOu've got a point there Oxo. There appears to be numerous local politicians sacked for inappropriate material stored on their council computers. Can't work both ways.

[Devillish Advocate]

Oxbeast may well have the truth of it, there, actually -I'm no expert on this (or very little else, for that matter).

I do wonder, though, whether those local politicians and council staff who find themselves sacked for their emailed material is due to that being revealed by an FOI request, or due to it being leaked by some malicious party, or being discovered during an investigation by the authorities (be that an internal council investigation, or an external police investigation)?

As I said before, can't hurt to push the issue and see what happens. Colleagues within my local council tell me that the primary role of a department secretary is stonewalling the public when they come asking awkward questions.