In August, a planning blog here highlighted a new two minute animated film that had just been produced by Tower Hamlets council. It was commissioned in December 2009. In it, a cartoon man and dog experience what it’s like going through the council’s planning process.
It starts with East End Life being delivered through the man’s door (that’s a rarity in itself, by the way) and then him turning to the front page. “New Plans For Your Area” is the freesheet’s splash. (That never happens either: to find out about a planning application in your area you have to scour the public notices in the back pages).
However, continuing in this sunny vein, the narrator says: “In the London Borough of Tower Hamlets, there are plenty of opportunities to have your say.” Suitably inspired, the man and dog stroll through the spotless, empty streets into an Idea Store to check out council information and then head for the various public consultations.
The message is laudable: get involved. Because if you don’t, the council planning officers will have their way.
Until I was notified of this film by a councillor today, I’d never heard of it. And neither have I been told by the council that tomorrow night there is one of its “highly publicised” consultation meetings about the desperately-needed regeneration of the Poundland and Perfect Fried Chicken boulevard that is the Roman Road (anyone unfamiliar with the Roman should know that it is about 500 metres or so from the Olympic Stadium: the stadium dominates the view looking east now).
This is one of those events at which we are told we can shape our future here. But if it hadn’t been for some active neighbours of mine, no one would have known. In fact, so secretive are the plans the council has for our area that it has declined a series of Freedom of Information requests for the minutes of a secret town hall group called the Roman Road Implementation Group. See the rejection letter from the council’s legal chief Isabella Freeman here. Yes, the council wants to hear YOUR views, according to its cartoon, but it certainly doesn’t want you to hear THEIRS. Apparently, revealing what planning officers are planning would be very, very bad. Here’s what Ms Freeman said:
…the disclosure of these minutes would reveal the Council’sinternal thinking processes. This would be detrimental to the ultimate quality of decision making as it will make officers reluctant to explore possible solutions which may, after discussion, be disregarded but which could have the potential to deliver valuable results for the community. This would have an adverse effect on the work of the Council.
The council’s cartoon has been watched by fewer than 1,000 people and most of them are probably puzzled American teenagers trying to “get” British humour.
Tory group leader didn’t find it amusing, though. He asked officers how much it cost to make. Answer: £16,440. “Words fail me,” he said. “Tower Hamlets is supposed to be the most deprived authority in the country, they complain constantly about cuts and yet spend public money on this nonsense. What an absolute farce.”
Here’s the council’s response to Peter:
25 November 2010
Dear Councillor Golds
Re: Members Enquiry – Tower Hamlets Gets Animated About Planning
Thank you for your Members Enquiry dated 23 November 2010, regarding the cost and commissioning of our Planning Consultation Animated Film.
The film was commissioned in December 2009 by officers in Planning and Building Control and, after a selection process, it was produced in partnership with the experienced film and media company ThirtyThree, who have produced this kind of film before.
The full cost for the film totalled £16,440, including subtitles and Bengali translation. It has been well received in the community and nationally and we have had a lot of positive feedback. We will be further monitoring the success of the film at upcoming planning engagement events, where this film will play a consistent role. Its objective is to encourage more local people to get involved in planning, which is even more important now given the emerging Localism Bill. We anticipate there will be a real focus on Local Authorities to better engage and involve local people in the planning process.
I hope my comments are of assistance to you. Should you require any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Yours sincerely,
Owen Whalley
Head of Planning and Building Control
Trial by Jeory 
The cost of the film is not excessive; it’s perfectly good value for the quality of film produced. Also, compared to the amount of money that the council would spend on an ad in a local paper, it’s also not a lot.
Setting aside whether the quetion of whether money should be spent at all on encouraging people to get involved in planning aps, the real problem here is one of distribution. It’s one thing to make a film, it’s another to get people to see it.
What plans did the council have to get the film out there for people to view? Is it for use in schools? Is it on display in Post Offices or Ideas Stores?
The advatange of an ad in the local paper is that you know who’s going to read it etc. But what plan does the council have to get people to view this film?
That’s the real question as far as I’m concerned.
Totally agree
I think you have missed the whole thrust of Ted’s argument which, as far as I can see, is that nomatter what people locally think or want the council, or rather its officers, are going to do whatever they want and everything else is spin designed to, just about, comply with the their own guidlines on consultation.
The process of concealment revealed by Ted and, as yet, not denied by council or councillors, is reminiscent of former Eastern Europe or some third world dictatorship. No wonder the council is trying to put the local press out of business and rely on its inhouse Pravda.
So how do you explain that 1,000 people had already seen it before Ted remarked on it?
What the council wants is more people involved in feed-back in order to dilute the vested interests.
The problem is that they’re not very good at it. In this meeting it was an effort to stop them talking about process. We’re interested in planning, not in the size and shape of their committees.
As Ted pointed out it had been watched by 1000 people. As he mentioned bemused American teenagers I am assuming that the thousand people were simply hits on the site and not necessarily local people. Do you have any information to the contrary?
Click on the Youtube button and go to that website, then you’ll see how many hits the film has had.
Dan, woopeedoo, a full 1000 people viewed it. But 1000 people is just 5% of the population of Tower Hamlets and indeed if people from outside the borough watched it even less than 5%.
I suspect you are a posh Labour boy living on the City fringe who has no connection with the concerns of real working class people here. We are concerned about the re-building for the Olympics. Places in Bow made flash for a few snobs in Mercedes whizzing up Bow Road.
All the decisions are made in Blackwall and no flashy video, wasting £16000 in council tax, changes that. It just entrenches the “vested interests”, giving them the veneer of democracy, while the same old same old is voted through at the Town Hall.
We know you are a Labour guy, on the payroll for taking photographs of Jim Fitzpatrick and Rushanara Ali (and some other people not quite as Labour as they were in May), you are quite open about it so thanks for your honesty, but the decent majority rejects a few videos as a substitute for LBTH councillors ramming through every application for chicken shops and anything for the Olympics!
I went to Cayley primary school Stepney Green Secondary school. I learnt to swim in York Hall. I learnt to play football in Victoria Park and learnt to fish on the Regents Canal.
I’ve never been paid for photographing either of the people you’ve mentioned.
I don’t leave annonymous comments on blogs. I don’t insult people without any effort to be in possession of the facts.
Anything else you need help with?
We’ve been down this road with your non-delivery of EEL before, haven’t we? Something to do with you living down an unmarked cul-de-sac obscured by an electric gate that opens only on days with an X in the name? I can’t count on the council for much, but I get the EEL through my letterbox without fail every Sunday or Monday.
Actually, no. The council/THH owns my building.
Where’s the meeting? I’d like to go
The Bow Idea Store, I understand, but I don’t have a time – suggest you call the council
6pm in Bow Idea Store Weds 1st Dec 2010
Thanks for this INCREDIBLE POST which says everything we need to know about how the council operates: treat people like children and when they respond tell them you are the parent and you know best.
Love the graphics – Tower Hamlets from Hanna Barbera circa 1960. Clearly the people who got the job didn’t need to leave Clerkenwell. http://www.thirtythree.co.uk/home
Wonder who was mates with them. Probably Joshie.
Unbelievable when you think how something like this could have been genuinely helpful instead of stupefyingly patronising.
Can’t wait to see TH join other councils in publishing its monthly lists of expenditure over £500. But they’ll need to employ extra staff to massage the figures.
Click to access 2010-11-P08-500.pdf
They don’t have publish expenditure lf over £500. The Tories did a U-turn and it’s now only stuff over £5,000. Although this would be included.
Since when? I hadn’t seen anything about the limit increasing.
The Council is holding a meeting to discuss the Local Development Framework at 6pm in Bow Idea Store Weds 1st Dec 2010.
Please come if you can make it – we need some local residents to balance out all the vested interests who are having their say!
Could find nothing on the council website re this LDF consultation meeting. Looked in events, news and even in the LDF planning pages. Nothing. Searched Roman Road regeneration and got the ‘Roman Road Regeneration Group’ which is Chaired by Councillor Joshua Peck. Is the ‘Roman Road Implementation Group’ different?
Whoever and whatever, this Roman Road consultation appears to be part of the LDF which is now part of the Core Strategy. Tower Hamlets is to be zoned into ‘District Town Centres’ – and Roman Road is one of these. There are details on the Residents First Tower Hamlets People Network. As usual, residents do a better and cheaper job of informing and engaging local people.
Searched ‘Roman Road Implementation Group’ on the Council website and see it is the same Group. Councillor Marc Francis is another Member of this ‘secret’ Group.
Here they are in a puff piece on the million pounds for Roman Road:
“Deputy Leader of Tower Hamlets Council, Cllr Josh Peck, who along with Cllr Marc Francis, Lead Member for Housing and Development, is a member of the Roman Road Implementation Group, said: “We’ve done a lot to improve Roman Road over the last few years, but we know that there is still a lot more to do.
“This latest round of improvements will make a noticeable difference to the area, and the works are a direct response to resident and business owners’ requests. Even with this million pound investment, residents are not going to see miraculous changes overnight, but they will see our drive and commitment to return the Roman to its glory days. “
Hard to see why the Group’s Minutes are closed to residents when there are at least two Councillors in this ‘Working Party’ – not just officers as Ms Freeman says. Also, are the Councillors paid for the hours they spend in this Group, working as our representatives? Hence Cllr Francis’ Time Sheet:
Other Meetings Working Party
(Victoria Park Steering Group (01.09.09) Roman Road Implementation Group (02.09.09) Crossrail Steering Group (14.09.09) ) 3:0
What is the LDF?
Local Development Framework.
Local Development Framework. I’m not sufficiently expert in planning but here’s the inevitable Wikipedia link to explain what it does
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_Development_Frameworks
local development partnership
The website of the Office of the Information Commissioner (the person charged with overseeing the implementation of data protection and freedom of information) states this on this page http://www.ico.gov.uk/for_organisations/freedom_of_information/information_request/reasons_to_refuse.aspx
I’ve not included all the links to further information but the links are available on the website
Ms Freeman as Monitoring Officer and responsible for the operation of the Freedom of Information Act as it pertains to Tower Hamlets Council ought to know what in refusing a request for information she should:
– state which specific exemption of the various exemptions she is relying on
– indicate to the person making the request whether this exemption is also subject to the public interest test.
Enjoy!
___________________________________________
What are the reasons to refuse a request?
You can refuse a request if:
it would cost too much to comply;
the request is vexatious or repeated; or
the information is exempt from disclosure under one of the exemptions in the Act.
When refusing you must send the requester a written refusal notice.
Vexatious and repeated requests
You can:
refuse ‘vexatious’ requests. Note that it is the request that can be considered vexatious, not the requestor;
refuse requests ‘identical or substantially similar’ to a previous request from the same person within a reasonable time period (repeated requests).
Our guidance explains how to judge whether a request is vexatious or repeated:
Vexatious requests – a short guide
Vexatious or repeated requests
You may also ‘aggregate’ the cost of related requests from the same person or campaign group within 60 days for the purpose of estimating the cost of compliance.
Our guidance on Using the Fees Regulations explains what is involved in aggregating costs.
The exemptions
The Act also recognises that there may be valid reasons for withholding information by setting out a number of exemptions from the right to know, some of which are subject to a public interest test.
There are 23 exemptions in the Freedom of Information Act, divided as follows:
Those that apply to a whole category (or class) of information, for example:
information about investigations and proceedings conducted by public authorities;
court records;
trade secrets.
Those that are subject to a ‘prejudice’ test, where disclosure would, or would be likely to, prejudice for example:
the interests of the United Kingdom abroad;
the prevention or detection of crime; or
the activity or interest described in the exemption.
For an explanation of what is meant by ‘prejudice’ see our guidance on prejudice and adversely affect .
The public interest test applies to most exemptions. When the test does apply these are called qualified exemptions. Those to which the test does not apply are called absolute exemptions.
Exemptions for personal information:
If personal information relates to the applicant, the request must be dealt with as a ‘subject access request’ made under the Data Protection Act 1998.
If the information requested relates to a third party, a decision on whether to release it will be based on whether releasing it would contravene the Data Protection Act.
When refusing a request for information, you cannot withhold an entire document because some of the information contained within it is exempt. You must provide a redacted version of the document along with a refusal notice stating why some of the information cannot be released; see our page on what does redaction mean.
When refusing information you must explain which exemption or exemptions you have applied, why you have applied them and, where appropriate, fully explain the public interest factors for and against disclosure. See our page on how should I refuse a request for more information on this.
There are no exemptions for:
Embarrassment; or
Incorrect or out of date information.
The following guidance notes provide further information on each of the 23 exemptions:
Section 21 – Information reasonably accessible to the applicant by other means (AG6)
Section 22 – Information intended for future publication (AG7)
Section 23 – Information supplied by or relating to security bodies – new
Section 24 – The national security exemption – new
Section 26 – Defence (AG10)
Section 27 – International relations (AG14)
Section 28 – Relations within the UK (AG13)
Section 29 – Economy (AG15)
Section 30 – Investigations (AG16) – recently updated 03/08/09
Section 31 – Law enforcement (AG17) – recently updated 03/08/09
Section 32 – Information contained in court records (AG9)
Section 32 – Information contained in court transcripts
Section 33 – Public audit (AG18)
Section 34 – Parliamentary privilege – under review
Section 35 – Policy formulation, Ministerial communications, Law Officers’ advice and the operation of Ministerial Private Office (AG24)
Section 36 – Effective conduct of public affairs (AG25)
Section 36 – What should be recorded? – new
Section 37 – Communications with Her Majesty and the awarding of honours (AG26)
Section 38 – Health and safety (AG19)
Section 39 – Environmental information (EIR guidance pages)
Section 40 – Personal Information (AG1) – recently updated 11/11/08
Section 40 – Access to information about public authorities’ employees
Section 40 – When should salaries be disclosed?
Section 40 – When should names be disclosed?
Section 40 – Complaints and investigations files – how to approach them
Section 40 – Guidance on dealing with requests for MP’s correspondence relating to constituents
Section 40 – Update note: Applying the exemption for third party personal data: the Tribunal’s approach in House of Commons v IC & Leapman, Brooke and Thomas
Section 40 and 41 – Access to information about the deceased
Section 41 – Information provided in confidence (AG2)
Section 41 – The duty of confidence and the public interest
Section 41 – Information provided in confidence relating to contracts
Section 42 – Legal professional privilege (AG4)
Section 43 – Commercial interest (AG5)
Section 43 – Public sector contracts – FOI annexe
Section 43 – Commercial detriment of third parties
Section 44 – Prohibitions on disclosure (AG27)
Section 44 – Enterprise Act 2002 and Freedom of Information Act 2000 – new
Section 44 – Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 and Freedom of Information Act 2000 “
Labour’s Distinctive Framework?!
God help the residents of LBTH if Swan Housing Association wins the contract to redevelop the Robin Hood gardens estate. Just look at the Swan Housing Horror Stories and Swan Housing blunders on this blog http://swanhousingdissatisfied.blogspot.com
Just shocking!!!
Duck Housing!
Well said.