Lets have a party!

Gallery

Stuart Thornton gets a response to his Freedom of Information request and makes the following observations. It seem as though Dazza gets the Town hall for free to run the interviews for the Labour Party selection process. Dazza is not … Continue reading

FOI 2012.19.12 – Lack of a response from RMBC to DoH consultation

FOI 2012.19.12 – LACK OF A RESPONSE FROM RMBC TO DoH CONSULTATION

Dear Sirs,

As an active and empowered citizen with an interest in the costs and activities of those who seek and enjoy public service at considerable financial expense to the local taxpayer I read the following item – http://www.dh.gov.uk/health/2012/12/health-scrutiny-response/ – with considerable interest and thought I would establish what had been the response from those elected members with responsibility for the health and social care of me and my family, within Rotherham MBC.

I was astonished, very disappointed, but not in the least bit surprised to find that there appears to be no recorded formal response from RMBC, unlike Wakefield Council, Sheffield City Council Health Scrutiny Committee, Leeds City Council Health Scrutiny Board, Chesterfield Borough Council and Barnsley MBC to name a few local statutory authorities who did provide a formal response.

It seems like I’m living in a disadvantage postcode lottery area in comparison to those citizens whose elected members and statutory authorities did provide responses on behalf of the communities they are elected to serve.

I therefore require you to provide me with the following information –

1. Why Rotherham MBC Elected Members and Officers fail to respond to the consultation?

2. Who, why and when, within Rotherham MBC decided not to respond to the consultation.

3. Were Rotherham MBC Elected Members and Officers aware of the consultation?

4. If Rotherham MBC Elected Members and Officers were not aware of the consultation, specify in detail why not.

5. Did Rotherham MBC Elected Members and Officers discuss the DoH Consultation with members of NHS Rotherham and/or Rotherham Clinical Commissioning Group?

Please provide the above information in electronic format and within the timescale prescribed in the Freedom of Information Act.

Yours Sincerley,
Donald H. Buxton

FOI 2012.12.12 – RMBC negotiations with Wickersley Parish Council

FOI 2012.12.12 – RMBC negotiations with Wickersley Parish Council

Dear freedomofinformation@rotherham.gov.uk

I am an active and empowered Wickersley citizen with an interest in the costs and activities of those who are in public service on behalf of me, my family and the residents of Rotherham.

In the attached PDF document there is an article “Ribbon of Colours” on p3 from my latest Wickersley Parish Council newsletter, in which it states that RMBC officers recently attended a Parish Council meeting to discuss possible remediation payment and/or works by RMBC in relation to RMBC spraying a central reservation in which Wickersley Parish had, under licence from RMBC, planted tuplips, crocuses and daffodils for many years.

I require you to provide me with the following information –

1. Copies of any such RMBC notes, memos, e-mails, letters, documents, plans or drawings or items by any other name in which details of said meeting took place.

2. What potential sum of possible remediation payment is RMBC contemplating negotiating with Wickersley Parish Council?

3. How, and when, did RMBC “forget” that Wickersley Parish Council have been undertaking planting under RMBC Licence?

4. What learning or disciplinary action has resulted from this mistake by RMBC?

5. Who is the Cabinet Member and Executive Director of the Directorate responsible for this mistake by RMBC?

6. Why didn’t RMBC formally liaise with Wickersley Parish Council, and other Parish Councils, before commencing the spraying work?

Please provide the above information in electronic format and within the timescale prescribed in the Freedom of Information Act.

Yours Sincerely,
Donald H. Buxton

Freedom of Information request 397

Dear “FreedomofInformation” <Freedomofinformation@rotherham.gov.uk>

Thank you for your e-mail.

However your organisation wishes to deal with my communication is a matter for your own established systems, protocols and processes.

I do however wish to receive all of the information that I have requested on this matter and look forward to timely receipt of the same.

Yours Sincerely,
Donald H. Buxton

On Tue, 4/9/12, FreedomofInformation <Freedomofinformation@rotherham.gov.uk> wrote:

From: FreedomofInformation <Freedomofinformation@rotherham.gov.uk>
Subject: Freedom of Information Request Ref 397
To: Don Buxton
Date: Tuesday, 4 September, 2012, 14:35

Dear Mr Buxton

I acknowledge receipt of your email dated 3 September 2012 addressed to Nigel Hancock.  The last point in your email relating to communication between RMBC and the Manager at MySpace will be dealt with under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

We will process this as soon as possible and let you have our response within 20 working days.

Yours sincerely

Christine Hotson
Access to Information Officer
Information Governance Unit
Legal Services
Resources Directorate
Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council

See previous on this issue as FOI 247, click here.

Freedom of Information Request 247 Another Pantomime, Now Farce?

Dear “NigelHancock” Nigel.Hancock@rotherham.gov.uk

Further to my e-mail response to you on Tuesday, 21 August, 2012, 15:35 I have further information to report to you on the same matter which leads me to believe that the Manager of MySpace Rotherham has completely disregarded whatever communication you may have had with them.

Please see the attached picture taken on today’s date, 3 September 2012 at 15:03 hrs which clearly shows that there are four signs still in-situ on the MySpace building, and all clearly visible to the public from the footpath and also the busy road junction at St Ann’s Roundabout. I am of the opinion that such signage so near to a busy traffic roundabout may be likely to distract drivers and thus pose a risk to pedestrians crossing the road at that point.

I now wish you to clearly inform me what your next steps will be in this matter to ensure that absolute compliance with the law is observed by MySpace, or failing that what legal course of action you intend to pursue against the MySpace organisation and those tasked with the responsibility of running it.

Surely you must agree with me that for a society and a community to remain cohesive it is incumbent on everyone, i.e. citizens, statutory organisations and businesses, to comply with the exact letter of the law however much of a burden that may prove to be or however much ones own personal points of view are at variance with the law.

Perhaps you will pursue your actions against MySpace with the same relentless vigour and determination as that which RMBC chose to employ when they took enforceable action against veteran citizen, Arthur Newey Esq of Dalton, or Mr C.Hamby of Whiston, when RMBC eagerly took those individuals through the Courts to secure full compliance with the law.

Or failing any of the above, perhaps you can clarify just exactly which civil and criminal laws I am at liberty to ignore without incurring any legal penalties or enforcement action from RMBC.

I require you to provide me with a detailed response in relation to the above concerns which I have again raised with you.

Perhaps you would be so kind as to supply me with an electronic redacted copy, minus any personal details, of the communication you sent to the Manager at MySpace?

Yours Sincerely,
Donald H. Buxton

Previously:

Freedom of Information Request 247 Another Pantomime?

The final instalment in the saga that is FOI 247: Dear “Hancock, Nigel” Nigel.Hancock@rotherham.gov.uk Thank you for your courteous and informative response. I trust, and indeed hope, that the RMBC Planning Department will pursue an equally vigorous line with the … Continue reading →

For everything on FOI 247, please click here.

Freedom of Information Request 247 Another Pantomime?

The final instalment in the saga that is FOI 247:

Dear “Hancock, Nigel” Nigel.Hancock@rotherham.gov.uk

Thank you for your courteous and informative response.

I trust, and indeed hope, that the RMBC Planning Department will pursue an equally vigorous line with the Manager of MyPlace as they did with elderly pensioner Arthur Newey Esq of Dalton, in order to ensure an equitable application of the planning laws which exist in order to prevent a plethora of inappropriate signages besmirching our communities.

http://rotherhamadvertiser.co.uk/news/90591/jack-and-the-beanstalk-poster-is-against-the-rules-oh-yes-it-is-.aspx

I shall be grateful if you will make a note to keep me informed of the results of your Department’s communications with MySpace and whether they intend to accept your diligent application of our town’s planning laws.

Yours Sincerely,
Donald H. Buxton

On Tue, 21/8/12, Hancock, Nigel <Nigel.Hancock@rotherham.gov.uk> wrote:
From: Hancock, Nigel <Nigel.Hancock@rotherham.gov.uk>
Subject: FW: FOI Request – 247
To: Don Buxton
Cc: “FreedomofInformation” <Freedomofinformation@rotherham.gov.uk>
Date: Tuesday, 21 August, 2012, 12:33

Dear Mr Buxton,

Further to your freedom of information request, I can confirm that advertisement consent for the banners has not currently been applied for which is why there is no Decision Notice or Officer Report.  However, I can confirm that the Planning Department has been in contact with the Manager of MyPlace and advised then that advertisement consent is required and have requested that an application be submitted if they are to be continued to be displayed.

Kind regards

Nigel Hancock

Development Manager – North
Development Management
Planning and Regeneration
Environment & Development Services
Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council

FOI 247 Previously on Rotherham Politics:

Freedom of Information Request 247 Another Pantomime?

The final instalment in the saga that is FOI 247: Dear “Hancock, Nigel” Nigel.Hancock@rotherham.gov.uk Thank you for your courteous and informative response. I trust, and indeed hope, that the RMBC Planning Department will pursue an equally vigorous line with the … Continue reading →

Freedom of Information Request 247 Another Response

Posted on August 9, 2012 by

Dear “FreedomofInformation” Freedomofinformation@rotherham.gov.uk Thank you for your courteous e-mail. I eagerly await your colleagues’ response with interest and undiluted enthusiasm and simply can’t wait to read what they send me. Yours Sincerely, Donald H. Buxton On Wed, 8/8/12, FreedomofInformation <Freedomofinformation@rotherham.gov.uk> … Continue reading →

Freedom of Information Request 247

Posted on August 8, 2012 by

Dear Mr Kimber, Please will you inform me whether your organisation intends to press for Planning Approval Notice for all of the signage attached to the “MyPlace – Rotherham ” building, some of which is identified in the attached photo … Continue reading →