My Email to the LGO, 25th April 2008
References:
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
Dear Mr Miles,
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.
Yours sincerely,
Keith Edmunds
[Back to the top]