|
The following are Freedom of
Information requests under the Freedom of Information Act based on
information held by both you and I.
I have obtained all documentation
and detail of communication from Portsmouth City Council between it and you
from 22 August 2007, Portsmouth City Council assures me that I now have all
information available. You and I are in possession of that information, and
therefore confidentiality cannot be an issue under either articles 32 or 44
of the 1974 Local Government Act, for you not providing me with the
information requested. Should there be any further information, then
Portsmouth City Council has lied to me, and as a consequence, has committed
a criminal act under the Freedom of Information Act.
1. Why was the 'Draft Key Facts'
report sent to both me and the Council, drafted in the format of a formal
Local Government Ombudsman maladministration report?
2. Why did your Assistant Ombudsman
say in her letter of 22 August 2007 to Portsmouth City Council that 'the
Ombudsman always welcomes attempts to settle complaints locally, even at
this late stage. Please let me know if you feel that this might be possible
in this case.' If there is no 'maladministration with injustice' why should
Portsmouth City Council be asked to settle by the Ombudsman?
3. Why also in the same letter
referred to in 2 above did she say 'If you would like us to email you a copy
of our press release on the final report…?'You only issue press releases for
situations where you find for the complainant that they have suffered
'maladministration with injustice?'
4. Following on from 1 to 3 above
why have you, the Ombudsman, rejected the obvious findings of both your
Investigator Mr Miles and Assistant Ombudsman Ms Jones and attempted to
cover up the situation on behalf of the Council to the detriment of us
complainants and our Human Rights?
5. Why have you provisionally found
'no maladministration causing injustice, by the Council when your own
Investigator Mr Miles told me himself that the Council's response to our
complaint was 'very light.'
6. Mr Miles in his email of
Thursday, March 15 2007 5:38 PM., refers to a query by me about work
commencing on the site before your investigation is complete. He states 'I
will take into account anything that has most recently occurred when I carry
out my interviews.' Why has this not been reflected in your provisional
report?
7. When Mr Miles asked the Council
(Carol Cunningham)(Email 06 December 2007 17:59) for photographs of the
completed development and she refused, why was this not followed up? Why
were we the complainants not asked to provide these photographs?
Now with regards to your provisional
report and the fact that on your own website you state 'we always provide
reasons for our decisions fully.'
1. Why have you ignored the evidence
provided by us at Enclosure 1 to our complaint on the relevant highlighted
sections of the BRE Good Practice Guide on light that is entirely relevant
to our complaint?
2. In Paragraph 12,explain the
'reasons fully' why you have reached this conclusion?
3. In paragraph 13, why have you
made this statement when they did not have access to our light report and
the planning officer made no comments about the applicability of the scheme
vis a vis the 1994 inspector's report in his written brief to committee?
4. In Paragraph 14, why have you
ignored the most significant aspects of the Inspector's report namely: Loss
of light. Turning the corner over the whole expanse of the site.
Overwhelming sense of enclosure?
5.In Paragraph 15, what are your
conclusions about these vague and inaccurate statements.
6. In Paragraph 16, what are your
conclusions about these statements?
7. In Paragraph 17, why have you
omitted the statement from the Council's own light report that 'winter
sunshine levels cannot be met' and omitted any reference whatsoever to
winter sunshine when this is the key issue?
8. In Paragraph 18, what are your
conclusions from these vague statements?
9. In Paragraph 19, why have you
made these statements? The council nor the officer concerned have never
denied that he said, in both the 1995 permission and 1998 renewal, that the
'BRE guidelines on light have been met,' We have told you that we will
provide affidavits to this effect, why have you not asked for them? The
Elected Members have agreed with the key facts as has the Council, this is
one of the key facts. Additionally they only looked at one window. Please
explain in full how given the foregoing facts and the Council's and our own
light reports you can make the statement 'I have not found evidence that
Council's officers gave misleading or inaccurate information to members
about the impact of the development on the sunlight and daylight
available…..'
10. Paragraph 20, This is a totally
vague statement. Provide a conclusion based on evidence already provided
about whether or not the former Chief Executive lied to you when he said
that the window of 'No19 was a worst case scenario' and that' the BRE
guidelines on light had been met?'
11. Provide evidence that the
Council took into account our 'consultant's assessments when it reached its
conclusions on the acceptability of the development proposed in 2005?'
[Back
to the top]
|