I detail below the full response I received from Yvette Monaghan and below I have added my response to her.
Dear Mr Hollyer
Thank you for your Email of 18th January and letter of 21st January. I will address each point in turn.
1. Complaint about Jane Tuck
You state that you have not received either an acknowledgement that this complaint is being investigated or an explanation as to why this is not being investigated through the complaints process.
I would draw your attention to the content of my email to you sent on 18t January 2011:
“In response to your numerous Emails in relation to the complaint you have made about Jane Tuck author of a planning report ref 10/01326/FUL.
Following enquiries being made I responded to you myself on 22nd December 2010, Peter Brown reiterated the content of this Email to you by Email on 4th January 2011.
You have Emailed your complaint to the Council 6 times on 17th and 22nd December, 5th (twice), 11th and now 18th January.
You have received a response, but you have not commented on this or stated why you remain dissatisfied.
If you wish the Council to consider this matter further can you please set out your complaint in full, otherwise the Council has nothing to add to the previous response you have received.”
Content of my email to you dated 22nd December:
“This planning application was reported to planning committee on 10
August 2010 when Members resolved that they were minded to grant the
application giving delegated power to the Head of Development Strategy
and Planning to determine the application subject to the conditions set out
in the report.
Subsequently Councillor Lott questioned whether what was set out in the
planning officer’s report at paragraph 7.41 was accurate. The report was taken
back to Planning Committee on 2 November 2010 to give clarification to the
issue raised and the relevant paragraph of the report has been amended
to reflect this clarification. This report is available for you to view on the Council website.”
Content of Peter Brown’s email to you dated 4th January 2011:
“I investigated the content of the original report when its accuracy was questioned by Councillor Lott.
I concluded that although no administrative error was made, one paragraph in the report was not absolutely clear. I therefore took the application back to committee to provide absolute clarity as set out in Yvette’s e mail 22.12.10.”
I confirm your complaint about Jane Tuck has been responded to and no further explanation will be provided by the Council.
- 2. Complaint 113380 – Steven Lyttle, Planning Officer
Stage 3 request received from yourself on 25th June, complaint was put on hold pending outcome of your other complaints about Planning Officers. I have reviewed each point in turn that you have raised:
2.1 “My question around what level of membership Steven Lyttle has at the RTPI has not been answered. There are the following levels: chartered member, chartered fellow, technical member, legal associate, associate member, honorary member etc etc. I specifically asked for his LEVEL of membership, not for confirmation that he is a member.”
This was responded to in the Stage 2 response dated 23rd June, Steven is a Member of the Royal Town Planning Institute, MRTPI is an accurate description, using your list above this would be a Chartered Member.
2.2 “I asked for an explanation as to HOW the proposed development met the Bfl criteria. I did not ask for confirmation of the scoring, I wanted to know HOW the score was arrived at. Again, this question remains unanswered. I am staggered that you still have not simply made available to me the scoring methodology and notes, or a précis of precisely HOW the scoring was made. You say that my simplistic y/n methodology is flawed, so how does it work?? I note that you acknowledge that it would have been ‘more helpful’ if the process had been better outlined to me. That’s fair enough, and I sincerely hope that appropriate measures will be taken in your department to ensure a higher level of customer care. But I would now like the information I requested.”
Peter Brown responded at Stage 2 of the complaints process on 23rd June 2010 as follows, “Steven undertook a BfL assessment on the 10 December 2009 on an early submitted scheme as part of the pre application discussion. It scored poorly. I understand that you have received a copy of this BfL assessment in response to a freedom of information request reference RFI 2559**. This assessment was used to guide officer discussions with the architects. A further detailed assessment would then normally be undertaken when an application is submitted. This will happen in relation to the current recently submitted application 10/01326/FUL and a copy will be made available for inspection. I have previously notified you of this application
I have given consideration as to whether it would have been reasonable to expect Steven to undertake the work required to run a further BfL assessment in relation to the developing and changing proposals before the Council at the time of your request, specifically to response to your request. Given that an initial assessment had already been undertaken to inform pre application discussions and that normal practise would not require a further one until a formal application is submitted, I would not expect him to do a further assessment in response to your request. I note that he had spoken to you at great length regarding the matter on the day before and outlined to you in his conversation why he thought the scheme designed had responded well to the key issues and constraints of the site.”
The BFL website provides the following information in relation to how scores are derived:
“SCORE of 1 Awarded where there is sufficient evidence that the proposed design will meet this criterion.
SCORE of 0.5 Awarded where there are specific areas where the proposed design performs well against the criterion but there are also others where it fails to do so. This option is not to be used as a fallback where the design is generally unclear or unconvincing.
SCORE of 0 Awarded where it is unclear whether the proposed design will meet the criterion or if you’re certain it will fail to meet the criterion.
You should provide evidence to support the score you award. If you are assessing a proposed scheme, refer to plans and drawings. If you are assessing a completed scheme, you could also refer to photographs and include observations. Remember, this exercise will not form part of the formal assessment scheme – it is simply to help you understand how assessments will work and how you can incorporate design thinking from the start.”
** A copy of the original score chart, including notes is attached to this email.
2.3 “I asked for details of the last three developments that Steven Lyttle had scored, together with detailed reasoning behind the scoring. Once again, I have not been supplied with this information as you consider it to be both disproportionate and unreasonable. And that by asking for this information that I am questioning Steven Lyttle’s competence. I find your response to be autocratic, arrogant and high-handed. I am also greatly irritated by your ham-fisted attempt to continue to close ranks and hide behind a veil of secrecy when confronted with a genuine, simple and honest customer enquiry. As the information that I have requested would be available through an FOI request I am at a loss as to why it has not been revealed as requested. My request is neither unreasonable nor disproportionate; it is not intended to question anyone’s competence, it is simply a request for information.”
The Council started doing BfL assessments in December 2009 after Steven Lyttle attended a training day hosted by CABE on the 4th December about how to implement the criteria. The initial assessment for Clive Street was carried out on the 10th December 2009 and this was the first scheme to be assessed against the criteria. However, Steven had provided comments on the design and layout of residential schemes previous to this in a less structured way.
The initial assessment of the scheme at a pre-application stage was designed to open up discussions and identify key issues. A full BfL assessment conducted at an Application Stage shows a much better picture of the design quality of a scheme. The full assessment of the Clive Street Application was done on the 14th July 2010.
The list below shows the BfL Assessments that Steven Lyttle has undertaken on schemes at an Application Stage.
- Charlotte Street North Shields – 11th February 2010
- Annitsford House – 17th February 2010
- Killingworth Northgate – 17th February 2010
- Wideopen – 27th April 2010
- Meadway Drive Forrest Hall – 14th June 2010
- Wantage Avenue North Shields – 6th July 2010
- Kings Road Wallsend – 24th September 2010
- St Joseph’s Killingworth – 2nd November 2010
Therefore there were no full BfL assessments to provide you with before December 2009. There are design comments that were made before this date.
I trust this fully answers your question.
2.4 “In attempting to get simple, straightforward answers to my questions, none of which have any degree of contentiousness and all of which are reasonable for any local taxpayer to raise, I have had to spend MANY hours of my valuable time reading through and responding to correspondence. Even after very many hours of this seemingly endless process I still do not have the answers I requested. I am now very deeply concerned by the way your department engages with the electorate. There is an increasing body of evidence that customer care and the spirit of open government are replaced by a culture of paranoid secrecy within your department. This is very disturbing and is rapidly becoming a matter of concern not only to me, but for both our elected representatives and the electorate as a whole.
Your comments are noted.
- 3. Complaint 113529 – Ian McCaffrey
Stage 3 request received by Email 19 June 2010.
3.1 “You have failed to address the core issue that my simple, direct and straightforward questions were not answered by Ian McCaffery. And, to date, they still remain unanswered. As a local taxpayer and resident I am becoming increasingly irritated that still these questions remain unanswered and that I have to waste my time engaging you and your department in this ludicrously prolix and verbose procedure to actually obtain straight answers to straight questions. If you honestly believe that this level of customer service is satisfactory or acceptable then there is clearly a very deep malaise within your department.
I reiterate…
Perhaps you would now be kind enough to answer my questions and supply (A) hard evidence and examples of both “positive change” and how ALL “objectives” are being met. Additionally you have ignored my request for (B) “quantify amounts of affordable housing, visitor and cultural attractions.”
Stage 2 response (A): “In your e mail of the 17 May 2010 you state that ‘the evidence of positive change is not apparent to you nor that the objectives are being met’. Clearly I am disappointed that you feel this way and would draw your attention to a number of projects & initiatives that the Council and partners have been actively involved in:
- Restoration of Irving Building, Clifford’s Fort, Southern Electrics.
- Creation of new food processor park which will free up the Crescent site for more appropriate development (possibly visitor orientated)
- Bringing space above shops back into use.
- Working in partnership with English Heritage & now Heritage Lottery Fund to lever in private sector investments in the form of restoration grants for example the Irving Building & Kristians
- Production of a bankside management plan
- Enhanced public realm to protect views and improve connectivity.
Stage 2 response (B), “Turning to the second question asking ‘if you are able to quantify amounts of affordable housing, visitor and cultural attractions’:
- Paul Dillon noted in his stage 1 response that the visions and objectives made no reference to ‘Affordable Housing’. This is correct and therefore there can be no quantification of that element of your question.
- Ian McCaffrey has confirmed that he has no data to quantify amounts of visitor and cultural attractions. Although he did respond that “As a resident of the Fish Quay and New Quay area I hope the evidence of positive change is readily apparent to you”. I consider that it would have been clearer if he had set out that he had no data to quantify visitor or cultural attractions.”
My view is that the Stage 2 response did provide answers to your questions.
3.2 “These are questions that a child would understand; they are perhaps questions you might not wish to answer, but I`m insisting that you do. I warn you now, I will not accept politician style non-answers, such as “we do not have the data”, or “records of this nature are not kept” as I would expect you to find out. After all, as planners you SHOULD know the answers, otherwise how can you plan anything??”
Your comments are noted.
Conclusion
Your numerous complaints about Council Planning Officers in relation to the Council’s handling of the Clive Street Development have been responded to. Officers have spent many hours dealing with your FOI requests, enquiries and formal complaints. I have reviewed the 2 outstanding cases and your more recent complaint and have included additional information where appropriate. The Council considers these matters now closed and will not enter into any further correspondence on these issues.
Should you wish to pursue these matters further you should contact the Local Government Ombudsman. I support an early referral of your complaints to the Ombudsman as the presenting facts indicate that reasonable, appropriate consideration of the complaints has been undertaken at Stage 2 and that further consideration by the Appeals and Complaints Committee would not produce a demonstrably different outcome.
The Ombudsman will apply a test of reasonableness to this decision. If the Ombudsman concludes that the Early Referral was incorrect, she may select from a range of responses, including proposing that the complaint be considered by the Council at Stage 3.
Early Referral will also not restrict the Ombudsman from later consideration of the complaint if she so chooses.
Yours sincerely
Yvette Monaghan
Acting Members’ Services & Customer Liaison Manager
North Tyneside Council
Quadrant (Room 3.13)
The Silverlink North
Cobalt Business Park
North Tyneside
NE27 0BY
Email: yvette.monaghan@northtyneside.gov.uk
Telephone (0191) 643 5361
Fax (0191) 643 2415
And my reply…
Hi
Thanks for your response which I will publish in full so the taxpayers can draw their own conclusions as to your actions and comments. It is very poor customer service that it has actually taken MANY months to get answers to simple questions which I finally do have today. As I have said on MANY occasions you seem to lose sight of the fact that I am the customer and am not an inconvenient irritant to be shuffled around, ignored, insulted or written to with a lack of due respect.
Re: Jane Tuck complaint
You say that: You have received a response, but you have not commented on this or stated why you remain dissatisfied.
I remain dissatisfied as my complaint that Jane Tuck misled the Members has not be formally investigated using the complaints procedure. Will this complaint now be formally heard?
I take exception to your comments ‘Your numerous complaints about Council Planning Officers in relation to the Council’s handling of the Clive Street Development have been responded to. Officers have spent many hours dealing with your FOI requests, enquiries and formal complaints. I have reviewed the 2 outstanding cases and your more recent complaint and have included additional information where appropriate. The Council considers these matters now closed and will not enter into any further correspondence on these issues.’
Once again, your high handed and autocratic response is frankly objectionable. Lines like ‘The Council considers these matters now closed and will not enter into any further correspondence on these issues’ are rude, uncooperative and show your complete lack of any commitment to customer care.
Personally I do not give a jot that you have had to respond to my FOI requests and complaints as THAT IS WHAT I PAY MY TAXES FOR!!!!!! And, it is what you are employed to do in a local democracy. If you think you can cherry pick what you want to deal with and when you want to deal with it, go and set up your own business and run it your way. Meanwhile you are a public servant, now kindly start acting like one rather than some tin pot dictator.
I will refer my complaints to the Ombudsman as suggested and also take up the matter of your attitude and language with your line manager.
Meanwhile, I look forward to an early response regarding my complaint against Jane Tuck.
Yours,
Paul's Blog 