A. My letter of 13 March 2008
B. Your 06/B/02324/BM dated 23 April 2008
C. Your 06/B/02324/BM dated 16 January 2008
FOR THE PERSONAL ATTENTION OF MR J.R. WHITE
1. The Local Government Ombudsman is in breach
of the Freedom of Information Act, by not answering my FOI request at
Annex B to reference A within the statutory twenty days, and by not asking
for further time to answer. You have no immunity under the Freedom of
Information Act as perjury has been
alleged. I expect an immediate response or I will make a formal complaint
to the ICO.
2. This is a further Freedom of Information
request as a consequence of your letter at Reference B, signed by Mr J. R.
White and the freedom of Information request is directed at him, and,
should be answered by him, personally. Once again as perjury is alleged,
you have no immunity under the FOI Act.
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUESTS
A. Under your 'General Comments' first
paragraph. Why are you directing the issue of Human
Rights to the Council? We allege that you (the LGO) are breaching our
Human Rights, through ignoring evidence that we have presented to you, by
distorting evidence to cover up for the Council and the consequent
'irrationality' of your decision that infringes our Human rights? Why
have you done this and tried to deflect the human rights issue on to the
Council? Comment fully on your infringement of our Human Rights, and why
you have perpetrated a cover up?
Second paragraph.
You have not answered our query , why were we
not asked for the photographs when the Council declined to provide them?
Please answer this.
B. Paragraph 9. Provide evidence from the
'Draft Key Facts,' that the Council have not committed 'maladministration
with injustice.' Additionally, why are you ignoring the main thrust of our
complaint - that the planning officer lied to committee about light
conditions in the 1998 and 2003 renewal, when we and they have provided
proof? Please answer these questions.
C. Paragraph 11. Explain this statement
fully in the light of Para 9 above -the planning officer lying to planning
committee in the 1998 permission and 2003 renewal. Why do you continue to
ignore evidence on this matter. Make a full assessment based on the
evidence held?
D. Paragraph 12. Explain precisely, on
information held, how the 2005 permission overcame the members concerns
'related to the scale and appearance of the development and its impact on
neighbouring properties, as well as loss of light?'
E. Paragraph 13. Explain why you have not
mentioned the evidence of our photographs produced for you here, and their
impact on your decision? Explain fully how a planning officer is
fulfilling his 'professional judgement' by omitting material evidence to
the committee in his written brief. Explain fully the relevance of your
statement 'Members of the committee stated that they had been satisfied
with the accuracy and completeness of the information by officers etc.' in
the light of the fact that they were never at any time shown the material
evidence we provided? Paras 14-17
F. Paragraph 14. Explain how precisely and in
detail, with information held, the 2005 permission overcame the reasons
for the 2004 refusal?
G. Paragraph 15. Explain precisely why you
continue to ignore the evidence we presented you with in our original
complaint (Enclosure 1) - sections 2.2 and 2.3 of The BRE Good Practice
Guide. Present your conclusions to this evidence.
H. Paragraph 16. Explain precisely how
'Councillors had sufficient information before them about the 2005 scheme
... to reach the decision ...in a proper manner' when they had been denied
access to material evidence we had provided. Explain precisely also how
'light levels can be acceptable' if none of them meet the standards of the
BRE Good Practice Guide?
I. Provide material evidence, from evidence
held, to support the statement that 'the 2005 scheme would not result in a
wholly unacceptable loss of daylight or sunlight to neighbouring
properties?'
J. Paragraph 19. Our existing FOI request
covers this. Why do you continue to ignore evidence that has been
presented to you (see my comments on this Para in Reference A Annexes A
and B. Please answer them fully.
Why have you ignored the statement from your
Inspector D.J. Pollard in your letter 14 September 1998
about 'it is clear that a building no higher than that already permitted
at 8 West Street.' When the current building is considerably higher than 8
West Street, explain your conclusions fully from these facts and why you
ignored it in your report?
K. Paragraph
20. Why do you continue to ignore the matter of perjury by a Former Chief
Executive of PCC. Why do you continue to cover up this very serious matter
of perjury? See my former FOI request on this matter and answer it please
in full? Provide a full judgement on the evidence provided and held by you
on this perjury by the CEO PCC?
l. Paragraph 21 Provide evidence to support
your statement 'that the reduction in sunlight and daylight that had been
identified did not give grounds for withholding consent from the revised
scheme?' Explain fully, what you mean by the statement 'Officers were
mindful....etc' and how this can possibly impact on the fact that Members
were not informed about it?
M. Paragraph 23/ 24. Explain fully why you
have ignored all the material evidence we have provided to you and why you
have ignored it by making the statement 'I have not seen grounds on
which I should conclude ...etc'
As already stated these issues revolve around
perjury which is proven and therefore you have no immunity under the FOI
Act.
Please reply to this FOI request within 20
working days or provide reasons why you cannot, in requesting an extension
of that time.
For any FOI requests that you may refuse to
answer, I refer you to the ICO's decision notice dated 30 August 2007
Reference:FS50086627 and the relevance of it to you, specifically, why
sections 32 and 44 should apply to that refusal.
The Local Government Ombudsman, Mr White is in
serious breach of his office by trying to conclude this investigation
before these FOI requests have been completed and we demand that, if he
has indeed sent Reference B to PCC, that he withdraws it until the FOI
requests have been completed.
Furthermore, until these FOI requests have
been fulfilled by the LGO, or a further complaint about these
matters, resolved by either the ICO or the Information Tribunal. The time
limit for Judicial review of any decision by the LGO shall not commence
until that date.
Keith Edmunds
[