Agenda item

To receive any questions from members of the public and replies thereto.

 

Note:   A maximum of 30 minutes is allowed for this item.

N Quinn         Regarding Agenda Item 9: The FOI Annual Report for 2024-25.

 

Paragraph 3.2 of this report, describes the partially upheld Decision Notice by saying: “information was considered subject to legal professional privilege, but two of the five individual names redacted would have had a reasonable expectation of their name being placed in the public domain”.

 

I think that this sentence could be considered as “Economical with the Truth”.

 

It says the some redactions were allowed and the release of two names was ordered - but that is not all...

 

It does not say that the Council was also ordered to release additional, wrongly redacted, information - or that 78 pages of information was released, on the advice of the Commissioner, prior to the Decision Notice being issued. 

 

I have it on good authority that the request for a report was made in May 2024, but the Council said “it was all exempt”. When asked to review, the Council maintained that nothing would be released.

 

A complaint was sent to the Information Commissioner, who contacted the Council about how the request had been handled.

 

The Council then released:

a 14 page report (with some redactions);

a 38 page Appendix (with minor redactions);

a 24 page Appendix (with very minor redactions);

and a 2 page Appendix (with no redactions at all).

 

Then in February 2025, after a total of nine months, the Decision Notice was issued.

 

Question 1: Does the Committee consider that this sentence, in the report, accurately reflects that 99% of the requested information was released?

 

Question 2: Does the Committee consider that this report informs Members of the problems that the public can have in obtaining information from this Council?

 

Question 3: Does the Committee consider it acceptable that a requester has to call in the Information Commissioner and wait nine months, in order to get 99% of the information requested?

 

The Chair thanked Mr Quinn for his questions and stated that he would receive a response within ten working days.

 

 

 

Barry Warren Regarding agenda items 8 and 9.

 

Firstly Madam Chair may I please compliment the Head of Digital Transformation & Customer Engagement for the positive intentions set out in the report and I hope that they are progressed and achieved and will therefore make the whole system so much more available and transparent to members and the public.

 

Question 1.  Is the time schedule set out in paragraph 3.1 in agenda item 8 report still considered to be achievable?

 

Moving to item 9, I must declare an interest in the cases set out at paragraphs 3.3 and 3.5 and the questions I now raise would benefit from an answer but I would hope that in researching the answer the officer could assure members that lessons could be learned to prevent a repeat of the issue in the future.

 

Question 2.  In the case at 3.3 the original request was for two documents and the response made no reference to one of them. A review was sought and again that document was not dealt with.  Why was this request for a document completely ignored twice?

 

After the intervention of the Information Commissioner the ignored document appeared before the release of his final decision on the main document. Redactions were made to the main document contrary to the instruction of the Information Commissioner and the Council applied to a Tribunal to retain the redactions. The Tribunal did not take its full course as there was no point since the information redacted was elsewhere in the report unredacted.

 

Question 3.  What procedures are being put in place to ensure that more care is being taken over understanding the requests made and ensuring all matters raised are addressed rather than some being ignored?  

 

The case referred to in 3.5 resulted in the Information Commissioner issuing a Decision Notice for compliance by MDDC who did not fully comply with it.  The case has been referred back to the Information Commissioner and given a new reference. I am aware that the Information Commissioner’s Office has contacted MDDC and a new Decision is still awaited.

 

Question 4.  How will this case be reported to Scrutiny Committee as it is not closed at this stage?

 

The Chair thanked Mr Warren for his questions and stated that he would receive a response within ten working days.

 

 

Paul Elstone –         Regarding Agenda Item 10  Modular Home Value for Money Benchmarking Report.

 

I feel certain the Housing Officer will provide this Committee with a raft of reasons as to why he considers this Councils investment in Zed Pod’s modular homes has provided net best value and come across as convincing when doing so. 

 

I maintain a position Benchmarking Report being used to justify this position is fundamentally (fatally) flawed.

 

I hope you all have taken the opportunity to read the document plus attachments I have provided well in advance, and which details these fundamental flaws. 

 

Question 1 
The net cost calculations per square metre show that the Bristol Category 2 MMC development is by far the best value. 

 

That the net cost per square metre of the Croft Estate – Sandford Development is 66% more expensive. Shapland Place is 58% more expensive.

This when everything including grant funding is normalised.  

The gross Internal floor area for the Bristol Development is 1,350 square metres yet the report calculation only equates to 900 square metres.

 

There are similar and very major calculation errors for the Eastleigh development seriously impacting the accuracy of the value for money benchmarking results. 

 

Please explain the full reason for the 900 square metre calculation error. An error which seriously distorts benchmarking results? 

 

 

Question 2 
This Council has a recent history of making disastrous financial decisions and related to Housing Projects.

3 Rivers including but not limited to St George’s Court

 

Post Hill - Land acquisition and disposal.

 

Knowle Lane - Land acquisition. 

 

Answers to questions asked at a Parliamentary Committee on the 4^th March this year stated the following:

 

 “I have just come out of a meeting yesterday looking at Councils use of MMC and what the barriers were.   They had a pretty negative view. Almost all council development people around the table had tried and were not going to do it again”. 

 

Also, and I again quote “we’ve been bitten. We are not doing that again”. This with regard to build cost, financial exposures plus build quality.

 

I contend this Council has already been ‘bitten’ and by both cost and quality. That it has not given full consideration to its financial exposures.

 

Why does this relatively small council with limited technical resources plus financial reserves think it can deliver something very different compared to larger Councils and in doing so guarantee there will not be yet another financial mistake? A disaster.

 

 

Question 3

My final question and one Chair I hope you will allow me to complete uninterrupted given it relates to health and well-being concerns for infants, the infirm and the elderly. 

I have previously raised concerns about the potential of high temperature, overheating risk, at the Shapland Place development. Concerns which have been dismissed.

 

Concerns raised given resident’s experiences at a Zed Pod development in Bristol and after internal temperatures of over 36 degrees C being reported.

 

At the Homes PDG meeting a Shapland Place resident and who is a single parent with a young child advised that they had already suffered uncomfortable temperatures as high as 30-degree C.  Even feeling it necessary to fix a thermometer to an internal wall.

 

High temperatures this despite them opening windows. Windows known to have limited cross air (cooling) ventilation capacity.

 

With an internal temperature of 30 degrees C in May what will it be in a July or August heatwave?

 

It may not be commonly known but room temperatures above 22 degrees C have been attributed to sudden infant death syndrome.

 

The Report Table at paragraph 2.3 states Zed Pods “Meet or Exceed Overheating standards” Why is this stated if the Council does not have the proof of compliance in its possession?

 

The Chair thanked Mr Elstone for his questions and stated that he would receive a response within ten working days.