Don Buxton makes his position crystal clear!

Don Buxton makes his position crystal clear, in this latest email contribution in the saga of the Libraries consultation:

Dear libraryreview@rotherham.gov.uk

I wish to formally record my complete disapproval and downright hostility to the proposal to reduce my highly successful Wickersley Library’s hours from 45 hours per week to 40 hours per week.

RMBC has not provided me with one piece of independently accredited evidence which informs me why my highly successful library is being so targetted.

Yet again, my community is destined to be significantly disadvantaged, whereas by contrast the much less used and much less patronised library at Aston, in the Holderness Ward of Cllr Gerald Smith, is to have its hours increased from 44.5 hours per week to 49 hours per week!

My community has sadly become used to being overruled, ignored, and disadvantaged in any matter in which the above Councillor has any presence, influence or input, and I have now lost all faith in the impartiality and integrity of RMBC Elected Members and Officers to govern my community with any sense of justice or fairness.

I have sought public assurances from the Wickersley Ward and Hellaby Ward Councillors as to whether or not they will be objecting to the proposed reduction in Wickersley’s hours and Cllr Lauren Astbury has publically confirmed in an e-mail to me that she will not be objecting.

So much for people who seek well-paid public office to represent the interests of the voters!

Based on my previous experience in my community I have little doubt that this “consultation” is yet another RMBC pretence and that all objections and views will be overruled and ignored and RMBC will steamroller through their plans – as they have planned to do all along.

RMBC’s Figures:

Wickersley Library
current hours = 45 per week
proposed hours = reduction to 40 per week
visits per year = 66,990
active borrowers = 3,642

Aston Library
current hours = 44.5 per week
proposed hours = 49 per week
visits per year = 53,155
active borrowers = 3,158

Yours Sincerely,
Donald H. Buxton
Active and Empowered Wickersley Citizen, Ratepayer, Resident and Voter

P.S. Please provide an e-mail acknowledgement of receipt of this e-mail

Libraries – Don Buxton asks more very good questions

We again bring you the latest in this series of correspondence with respect to the Libraries Consultation and the Assessment of Local Need. Latest first, as usual.

Dear “Murphy, Bernard” <Bernard.Murphy@rotherham.gov.uk>

Thank you for your response,

As an avid reader and lifelong supporter of adult and child literacy I have perused your response and I intriguingly note that you refer to: “It has been demonstrated in the past, in a number of other local authority areas, that changes in opening hours can actually maintain or increase usage, so long as the hours  are the right ones”.

As you have been bold and apparently informed enough to make the above statement to me I now require for you and/or an RMBC colleague to provide the following information for me in order that I can aspire to reach that same informed and knowledgable state –

(a) when “it has been demonstrated in the past”.

(b) to which “local authority areas” you refer.

(c) what “changes in opening hours can actually maintain or increase usage”.

(d) who, and on what specific basis, decides which “hours are the right ones”.

Please provide me with specific information to confirm the veracity and integrity of your statement of supposed facts to me and please provide this information in electronic format and within the timescale prescribed in the Freedom of Information Act.

Yours Sincerely,
Donald H. Buxton

On Thu, 12/7/12, Murphy, Bernard <Bernard.Murphy@rotherham.gov.uk> wrote:
From: Murphy, Bernard <Bernard.Murphy@rotherham.gov.uk>
Subject: RE: Assessment of Local Need
To: DON BUXTON
Date: Thursday, 12 July, 2012, 18:31

Dear Mr Buxton,

Thank you again for your interest in and contributions to the consultation regarding the current review of library provision.

First of all, it is important to stress that at this stage we are considering a number of proposals and that any decisions will only be made by elected members once feedback from the public consultation has been analysed.

Following the decisions by members to review the service (November 2011) and to take proposals out to public consultation (June 2012), we are expecting to present the results of public consultation to them in the autumn.

The challenge presented to the Library and Information Service was to deliver a modern, vibrant library service within the resource available to use.  We have therefore considered the need for, the usage of and the accessibility of the service across the whole of the Borough when drawing up proposals.

Proposals also take into account the Library and Information Service Strategy 2011-15, which was developed following public consultation and is available on the Library Service’s website. (www.rotherham.gov.uk/libraries). This also sets out the priorities for the service.

The context for the review is a recent period of positive investment in our library service in terms of bookfund, construction, modernisation, replacement and refurbishment including the opening of six new libraries in as many years. (Thorpe Hesley 2007, Wickersley 2008, Mowbray Gardens 2009, Aston 2010, Riverside and Rawmarsh 2012). We are proud of our library service in Rotherham and hope that this review will equip us to continue to provide a modern vibrant library service across the borough.

With regard to Wickersley Library specifically, the Council contributed around £570,000 to the cost of the capital development of the site and continues to support the service with an ongoing revenue contribution.

The proposals are based on an assessment of local need for the service, rather than purely current usage. This includes the development of a number of ‘hub’ sites across the Borough( currently proposed  for Wath, Riverside House, Dinnington and Aston) These sites would have extended opening hours and also offer access to additional Council and partner services.

It has been demonstrated in the past, in a number of other local authority areas, that changes in opening hours can actually maintain or increase usage, so long as the hours  are the right ones. So for example, if the library is very quiet on one day, then moving some of those hours to another day or evening could open it up to more people within the local community. As part of the consultation, we hope that local people will contribute their local knowledge/community background.

Thank you once again for your contributions to the debate so far. I hope that you will be available to attend on July 17 at Wickersley Library so that we can listen to and record your views on potential opening hours for Wickersley and all the Library Review proposals.

Bernard Murphy
Manager : Library and Information Service
Cultural Services
Environment and Development Services
Rotherham MBC ,3rd Floor, Wing A, Riverside House, Main Street
Rotherham S60  1AE

Libraries – Don Buxton asks very good questions

We bring you the latest in this series of correspondence with respect to the Libraries Consultation and the Assessment of Local Need. Latest first, as usual.

Don Buxton responded thus on Thursday, 12 July, 2012, 19:03, in his inimitable style:

Dear “Murphy, Bernard” <Bernard.Murphy@rotherham.gov.uk>

Thank you for your comprehensive, confusing and highly obfuscating response.

You have spectacularly failed to demonstrate or answer why my highly successful and well patronised library at Wickersley (RMBC’s figures – not mine) is to be disadvantaged in favour of the much lesser used and much less successful library at Aston (RMBC’s figures – not mine).

Once again, I request that you specify in clear, exact and unambiguous terms exactly why my Wickersley Library is earmarked for a reduction in hours.

You have stated: “The proposals are based on an assessment of local need for the service, rather than purely current usage. This includes the development of a number of ‘hub’ sites across the Borough( currently proposed  for Wath, Riverside House, Dinnington and Aston) These sites would have extended opening hours and also offer access to additional Council and partner services”.

Please provide me with an electronic copy of the specific document “Assessment of Local Need” to which you refer. You may wish to refer this to your FOI colleagues for their assistance, but either way, this is not a request it is a DEMAND for the document/report to which you refer.

If my wording and requirements are in any way unclear to you or your colleagues then please don’t hesitate to contact me by e-mail.

Yours Sincerely,
Donald H. Buxton

On Thu, 12/7/12, Murphy, Bernard wrote:
From: Murphy, Bernard <Bernard.Murphy@rotherham.gov.uk>
Subject: RE: Assessment of Local Need
To: DON BUXTON
Date: Thursday, 12 July, 2012, 18:31

Dear Mr Buxton,

Thank you again for your interest in and contributions to the consultation regarding the current review of library provision.

First of all, it is important to stress that at this stage we are considering a number of proposals and that any decisions will only be made by elected members once feedback from the public consultation has been analysed.

Following the decisions by members to review the service (November 2011) and to take proposals out to public consultation (June 2012), we are expecting to present the results of public consultation to them in the autumn.

The challenge presented to the Library and Information Service was to deliver a modern, vibrant library service within the resource available to use.  We have therefore considered the need for, the usage of and the accessibility of the service across the whole of the Borough when drawing up proposals.

Proposals also take into account the Library and Information Service Strategy 2011-15, which was developed following public consultation and is available on the Library Service’s website. (www.rotherham.gov.uk/libraries). This also sets out the priorities for the service.

The context for the review is a recent period of positive investment in our library service in terms of bookfund, construction, modernisation, replacement and refurbishment including the opening of six new libraries in as many years. (Thorpe Hesley 2007, Wickersley 2008, Mowbray Gardens 2009, Aston 2010, Riverside and Rawmarsh 2012). We are proud of our library service in Rotherham and hope that this review will equip us to continue to provide a modern vibrant library service across the borough.

With regard to Wickersley Library specifically, the Council contributed around £570,000 to the cost of the capital development of the site and continues to support the service with an ongoing revenue contribution.

The proposals are based on an assessment of local need for the service, rather than purely current usage. This includes the development of a number of ‘hub’ sites across the Borough( currently proposed  for Wath, Riverside House, Dinnington and Aston) These sites would have extended opening hours and also offer access to additional Council and partner services.

It has been demonstrated in the past, in a number of other local authority areas, that changes in opening hours can actually maintain or increase usage, so long as the hours  are the right ones. So for example, if the library is very quiet on one day, then moving some of those hours to another day or evening could open it up to more people within the local community. As part of the consultation, we hope that local people will contribute their local knowledge/community background.

Thank you once again for your contributions to the debate so far. I hope that you will be available to attend on July 17 at Wickersley Library so that we can listen to and record your views on potential opening hours for Wickersley and all the Library Review proposals.

Bernard Murphy
Manager : Library and Information Service
Cultural Services
Environment and Development Services
Rotherham MBC ,3rd Floor, Wing A, Riverside House, Main Street
Rotherham S60  1AE

Previously: Libraries – Assessment of Local Need? Consultation Events.

Responding to enquiries – Ken Wyatt shows how it should be done

Don Buxton has let Rotherham Politics have this email exchange he has had very recently with Councillor Ken Wyatt. We bring it to you as it serves to demonstrate how it should be done, with courtesy combined with simple straightforwardness. Rothpol is glad that Ken Wyatt is one of his local Councillors.

On Tue, 10/7/12, DON BUXTON wrote:

From: DON BUXTON
Subject: RE: HEALTH & WELLBEING BOARD DOCUMENTS
To: KenWyatt , ChiefExecutive@rotherham.gov.uk
Date: Tuesday, 10 July, 2012, 16:42

Dear Cllr Wyatt,

Many thanks for your most courteous and positive response to my suggestions which may further enhance the worthy work of your Board.

As a very regular NHS service user I would value any future opportunity to be of assistance to you and Health and Well Being Colleagues and the work that you do.

Yours Sincerely,
Donald H. Buxton

On Tue, 10/7/12, Wyatt, Ken wrote:
From: Wyatt, Ken
Subject: RE: HEALTH & WELLBEING BOARD DOCUMENTS
To: DON BUXTON, “ChiefExecutive”
Date: Tuesday, 10 July, 2012, 11:43

Dear Mr Buxton.

Thank you for your email and your interest in the work of the new Rotherham Health and Wellbeing Board (H&WBB).

You make a fair point regarding the use of acronyms in public documents and I will draw this to the attention of the H&WBB this week under the agenda item ‘communications’.

It is very easy for people inside organisations to slip in to the use of acronyms and language which may not be fully understood by people on the outside.

Best wishes and thank you once again for your kind words of support for the Board.

Councillor Ken Wyatt J.P.
Elected Member for Swinton Ward.
Cabinet Member Rotherham MBC.

From: DON BUXTON
Sent: 07 July 2012 07:30
To: Wyatt, Ken; ChiefExecutive

Subject: HEALTH & WELLBEING BOARD DOCUMENTS

Dear Cllr Wyatt,

As a very active and empowered Wickersley resident, voter and ratepayer with a keen interest in the work of RMBC Elected Members and Officers, I have lately perused the following documents – http://moderngov.rotherham.gov.uk/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=11812&T=10 – of the Health and Well Being Board of which I note you are the Chairman.

As a critical friend of RMBC I would like to offer the following observation and advice to you which I believe will positively enhance the public’s future understanding of your Board’s reports and documents and the very worthy work which it undertakes on behalf of Rotherham ‘s population.

1. Please will you instruct your RMBC Elected Members and Officers, and partners and stakeholders, to refrain from the prolific use of unexplained acronyms in your public documents, i.e. “CCG” “NAS” “NHSR” “RDaSH.

The unnecessary use of such a plethora of acronyms, particularly when unexplained, only further serves to alienate, confound and confuse the unempowered citizen, particularly BME and elderly citizens, from gaining a full understanding of such documents and runs the risk of them possibly failing to engage with healthcare professionals to the detriment of their future health and well-being.

I offer you the above advice in a spirit of constructive dialogue and hope that you will take onboard my advice.

Please don’t hesitate to contact me if I can be of further assistance to you and your Board.

Yours Sincerely,
Donald H. Buxton

Is It Pantomime Season Again?

FOI 2012.07.09 – PLANNING PERMISSION FOR SIGNAGE

Dear freedomofinformation@rotherham.gov.uk

As an active and empowered citizen with an interest in the costs and activities of RMBC Elected Members and Officers who govern our town with the consent of the electorate I wish to obtain the following information.

I require you to supply me with the following information under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act.

1. Please provide me with a copy of the Planning Approval Notice for all of the signage attached to the “MyPlace – Rotherham” building, some of which is identified in the attached photo taken at 16:59 hrs today, Monday 9 July 2012.

2. Please provide me with a copy of the Officer Approval Report and/or the Agenda and Minutes of the RMBC Planning Board Meeting at which Planning Consent was granted for the erection of the signage attached to the “MyPlace – Rotherham” building identified in the attached photo taken at 16:59 hrs today, Monday 9 July 2012.

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

Yours Sincerely,
Donald H. Buxton

Click on image to enlarge.

Rotherham’s Disgrace – RMBC Website concealing more than revealing – Answer Supplied

Don Buxton received his reply:

On Tue, 26/6/12, Rimes, Kevin <Kevin.Rimes@rotherham.gov.uk> wrote:

From: Rimes, Kevin <Kevin.Rimes@rotherham.gov.uk>
Subject: RE: COMPLAINT/CONCERN TO THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF RMBC
To: Don Buxton
Cc: “CYPS-Complaints” <CYPS-Complaints@rotherham.gov.uk>, “NAS-Complaints” <NAS-Complaints@rotherham.gov.uk>
Date: Tuesday, 26 June, 2012, 11:00

Dear Mr Buxton

Thank you for contacting us regarding your enquiry about the RMBC website and the following web page – http://www.rotherham.gov.uk/info/200036/domestic_violence/738/domestic_violence/2

Having looked into this matter I am able to provide you with the following information in response to your enquiries:

1.      I can inform you that the link had unfortunately not been updated correctly when the location of the document you refer to had changed.

2.      The web page in question has now been updated and the document included on the RMBC website for the public to access.

Having discussed this matter with colleagues responsible for this web page I am informed that although consultation with the general public was completed in December 2011; consultation with other stakeholders is still ongoing.  Therefore if you wish to comment on the Draft Strategy then your comments and views on this document will be gratefully received.

May I take this opportunity to thank you again for your enquiry and for bringing this matter to our attention.

Yours sincerely

Kind regards

Kevin Rimes
Service Improvement Officer
Performance and Quality (Children and Young People Services)
Commissioning, Policy and Performance
Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council

Don acknowledged thus:

Dear “Rimes, Kevin” <Kevin.Rimes@rotherham.gov.uk>

Thank you for your response and your apology for RMBC’s dire corporate failure to ensure that its corporate website is kept updated and easily accessible by citizens ratepayers who wish to freely access statutory information.

I will continue to maintain a watching brief on any or all aspects of RMBC’s provision of statutory information via its corporate website, and in that regard I may well contact you in the future should RMBC again fail in its corporate duty to provide statutory information to citizen ratepayers.

In the meanwhile I now consider this particular matter to be closed and thank you for your assistance.

Yours Sincerely,
Donald H. Buxton

Previously: Rotherham’s Disgrace – RMBC Website concealing more than revealing – Questions asked

Final questions answered?

Don Buxton got his final response:

— On Wed, 30/5/12, Battersby, Karl <Karl.Battersby@rotherham.gov.uk> wrote:

From: Battersby, Karl <Karl.Battersby@rotherham.gov.uk>
Subject: RE: FOI Request – 105
To: donbuxton
Cc: “Corbett, Sarah” <Sarah.Corbett@rotherham.gov.uk>, “Pike, Christine” <Christine.Pike@rotherham.gov.uk>, “Kemp, Liz” <Liz.Kemp@rotherham.gov.uk>
Date: Wednesday, 30 May, 2012, 13:45

Mr Buxton, I write in response to your latest email. Apologies, but I thought I had answered point one. I enclose a copy of the cost sheet that was used in calculating the cost of responding to your FOI of the 15th May. I hold no further information on this matter.

In relation to your second point, the answer is no. I did not answer this point, as I thought that this was a rhetorical question. My response would still have notionally cost the same, as I spent time drafting the response and checking the ICO advice. Responding to this correspondence clearly costs time, and therefore money.

I think that we have now exhausted this issue, and I consider the matter closed.

Regards
Karl Battersby
Strategic Director
Environment and Development Services
Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council

Don Buxton responded thus:

Dear Battersby, Karl Karl.Battersby@rotherham.gov.uk  et-al,

Your apology is very publicly noted as indeed is your assumption that part of my letter was “rhetorical”. As you are now no doubt very aware it has proved both embarrassing and expensive for you to yet again make assumptions.

I note with interest that you will not be including further costings to Leeds City Council in relation to their failure to reimburse the Rotherham taxpayers, via RMBC, for the Leader’s profligate use of the civic vehicle for non-RMBC use.

Clearly any further requests to Leeds City Council for payment don’t attract any cost from RMBC in their myopic jumbled-up approach to civic finance. RMBC seems to have developed a highly selective approach to those issues which it decides cost something and those politically embarrassing issues which it wishes to bury and decides don’t cost anything.

Your notional spurious costings are entirely rejected by me, and I would suggest and advise that you consider that it is the fact that Cllr Roger Stone’s non-RMBC use of the civic vehicle which created the cost to the town’s ratepayers in the first place. Happily this was brought to my attention by a strategic friend within Town Hall Towers.

I now choose to end this matter as I can no longer be bothered to spend my time and money exchanging communications with you.

Yours Sincerely,

Donald H. Buxton

Questions that went unanswered?

Don Buxton received this response:

— On Mon, 28/5/12, Battersby, Karl <Karl.Battersby@rotherham.gov.uk> wrote:
From: Battersby, Karl <Karl.Battersby@rotherham.gov.uk>
Subject: RE: FOI Request – 105
To: “DON BUXTON”
Cc: “Kemp, Liz” <Liz.Kemp@rotherham.gov.uk>
Date: Monday, 28 May, 2012, 14:43

Mr Buxton, I write in response to your request on behalf of the Chief Executive.

In terms of the first issue, advice from the Information Commissioners Office is that for a request to be valid under the Freedom of Information Act it must be in writing, but requesters do not have to mention the Act or direct their request to a designated member of staff. We should therefore treat every request for information as an FOI request.

In terms of the cost, we use a cost calculator based on the amount of time taken to find the information and deal with the request. This includes the time taken to log in the request, retrieve the information,  and subsequently respond. We do not make a charge ( although the regulations allow a charge to be levied), but we do show what it has cost to respond. The regulations state that:

“ A public authority can charge for the time taken by its staff on the activities included in communicating the information. Regulation 7(5) indicates that staff time is to be charged at the flat rate of £25 per hour, irrespective of whether a higher rate is actually incurred by internal staff or charged by external contractor staff”.

We use this regulation as the basis for communicating what it has cost to respond to the request for information. In this instance, the cost to the authority in responding to this request has been £12.50.

Regards.

Karl Battersby
Strategic Director
Environment and Development Services
Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council

Still dissatisfied, Don replied thus:

Dear chiefexecutive@rotherham.gov.uk

In response to the latest e-mail from your subordinate employee I note that there has been a complete failure by RMBC to answer these two points –

(a) – I would appreciate a detailed costing from you or a subordinate which explains how your organisation is able to concoct such a ridiculous notional imaginary sum.

(b) – Will you be adding such a spurious notional sum to your subsequent requests to Leeds City Council for reimbursement of the costs of RMBC’s civic vehicle. If not, please explain to me why not.

I also note the pedantic nature of your response which alleges the further spurious notional cost of £12.50.

To quote a previous Chief Executive of RMBC, the e-mail was read, but not read thoroughly enough. Perhaps if it had been read thoroughly enough then you could have saved £12.50 instead of incurring it.

I have costed my time at 0% in relation to my request to obtain statutory information held by RMBC, and as such will not be making a request for payment or reimbursement to RMBC.

This has been part of my civic duty as an active and empowered citizen who wishes to scrutinise and challenge the costs of activities of those who are elected to discharge public duties on behalf of Rotherham citizens.

I hope to have the courtesy of a reply to my two unanswered points.

Yours Sincerely,

Donald H. Buxton

Don’t miss Trambuster’s comment, which reveals the amazing and outrageous deception at the heart of Karl Battersby’s reply! Karl Battersby should learn that Rothpol’s contributors and readers are neither fools or mushrooms!

Bulgarian jolly raises more important questions?

From: DON BUXTON
Sent: 15 May 2012
To: Chief Executive

I attach for your information a PDF response I received yesterday from Leeds City Council in relation to an FOI, part of which (see highlighted section below) relates to the use of the RMBC statutory civic vehicle, YM08DZP, used to convey RMBC Cllr Roger Stone and Wakefield MDC Cllr Olivia Marie Rowley to Manchester Airport and return on business which is totally unrelated to any specific duties directly connected to Rotherham MBC which are funded by Rotherham taxpayers.

Will Migration Yorkshire at Leeds City Council be reimbursing fuel costs and driver staff costs to Rotherham MBC for the use by RMBC Councillor Roger Stone of RMBC statutory vehicle, BMW saloon registration number YM08DZP used to convey him and Councillor Olivia Marie Rowley, Wakefield MDC to Manchester Airport on Migration Yorkshire business?

All costs will be reimbursed by Migration Yorkshire, Leeds City Council.

Please inform me of the following:

(a) has Rotherham MBC already requested reimbursement from Leeds City Council?

(b) if not why not?

(c) please confirm the detailed itemised reimbursement cost which will be requested.

(d) if not, when will Rotherham MBC request reimbursement from Leeds City Council?

(e) if Rotherham MBC has already requested reimbursement from Leeds City Council on what date was the request sent and on what date can Rotherham ratepayers expect that Rotherham MBC will receive reimbursement for the use of the RMBC statutory vehicle referred to?

I look forward to your prompt and comprehensive response.

Yours Sincerely,

Donald H Buxton

Shaun Wright – Mayor of Rotherham, Parking Outrage – The questions begin

Dear chiefexecutive@rotherham.gov.uk

Further to our previous conversations about the unlawful and irresponsible parking of RMBC vehicles on the paved pedestrian area outside the Town Hall and the response from your subordinate employee that vehicles would no longer be parked there when not in use, I am attaching a photo taken this afternoon around 1630 hrs which clearly shows another RMBC vehicle, registation number ET1, to be parking in contravention of the specific statement issued to me by your employee Karly Battersby, and copied for your information below.

I would be grateful if you can supply me with –

(a) details of the specific legal instrument by which this RMBC vehicle is authorised to park on the said paved pedestrian area otherwise than in accordance with local parking regulations.
(b) specific details of today’s journey log for this vehicle, including destinations and times.
(c) who within RMBC has authorised this vehicle to park on the paved pedestrian area.

I look forward to your prompt and complete response to my enquiry.

Yours Sincerely,
Donald H. Buxton

The response duly arrived:

On Thu, 19/4/12, Battersby, Karl <Karl.Battersby@rotherham.gov.uk> wrote:

From: Battersby, Karl <Karl.Battersby@rotherham.gov.uk>
Subject: RE: FURTHER RMBC VEHICLE PARKED ON PAVEMENT TODAY OUTSIDE TOWN HALL
To: Don Buxton
Cc: “Hatton, Lesley” <Lesley.Hatton@rotherham.gov.uk>, “Kemp, Liz” <Liz.Kemp@rotherham.gov.uk>
Date: Thursday, 19 April, 2012, 9:50

Mr Buxton, the Chief Executive has asked me to respond on his behalf. Your previous complaint regarded the vehicle that is used in the main by the leader YM08 DZP, which is no longer parked outside the Town Hall, as confirmed by my last email. There is no contravention of my previous statement.

The vehicle to which you now refer is the mayoral vehicle ET1, which is parked there when required to take the mayor to and from mayoral duties, as it has been for some time. We can of course provide you with the vehicle log, mileage and destination information in due course.

Regards

Karl Battersby
Strategic Director
Environment and Development Services
Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council

A response was duly sent:

Dear chiefexecutive@rotherham.gov.uk

Thank you for your partial response.

I did not submit my previous communication as a “complaint”.

Please inform me why it is referred to as such.

Also please respond to my specific points (a) and (c).

Yours Sincerely,
Donald H. Buxton