Submit Article

If you would like to submit an article, click the button below.

Navigation

<-- Back to Current Category

Dundee

By: Tayside Tenants, Fri Dec 9th, 2005 04:32:45 PM

Freedom of Information Act and still decisions made are hidden by bureaucracy!

The Butterburn and Bucklemaker Tenants Association wanted to know what excuse the council was using in order to demolish their homes, so they thought they’d ask them. A document prepared for the council meeting with regards to the demolition prepared by council officers referred to an independent consultants’ report. The Butterburn and Bucklemaker Tenants Association doubted if many councillors had actually read the report, but the tenants association thought that they should. So they asked to see it. If there was a good reason for demolition then many would think the council wouldn’t mind showing it to the tenants association. However, they did mind. So they thought that they would try and use the new Freedom of Information Act. This is what happened: FROM Butterburn AND BUCKLEMAKER TENANTS ASSOCIATION TO DUNDEE CITY COUNCIL 17TH JANUARY 2005

“I am writing to request access to a council commissioned report under the new Freedom of Information Act. The document I am referring to is an ‘independent consultant’s report’, which was referred to on page three the Council Housing Committee discussion document recommending approval in principle of the demolition of 1900 homes, dated 21st June 2004. I would be grateful if you can confirm that access to this document can be allowed under the new FOI act, and if so, what procedure I have to follow in order to gain access. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any queries etc. I look forward to hearing from you.”

FROM DUNDEE CITY COUNCIL’S LEGAL MANAGER 15TH FEBRUARY 2005-07-29

I refer to your letter of 17 January 2005

“Section 33(1) (b) of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 provides that information is exempt and does not have to be disclosed if its disclosure would or would be likely to prejudice substantially the commercial interests of any person. Having consulted the authors of the report, we are advised that providing the report to you would reveal the methodology they used in preparing such reports, that that methodology is commercially valuable to them and that disclosure of that methodology would therefore cause real harm to their commercial interests.

Local authorities are under a statutory obligation to secure Best Value and it would not be in the public interest to do anything (in particular by revealing such information) which would interfere with commercial competition amongst those who provide or seek to provide services to local authorities as that would run counter to the pursuit of Best Value.

For those reasons I refuse your request.

If however there is specific information in the report which you wish and you were to let me know what that information is I would be happy to consider if there is another way in which it might be made available to you.

If you are unhappy with this reply you may require the Council to review its actions and decisions n relation to your request.”

FROM BUTTERBURN AND BUCKLEMAKER TENANTS ASSOCIATION TO DUNDEE CITY COUNCIL 29TH MARCH 2005

“I would like to appeal against the council decision not to allow access to the report giving arguments for the proposed housing demolitions… I am acting on behalf of some of the tenants in the buildings concerned, who find it extraordinary that those who will be most effected are denied the opportunity to see the reasons for the decision. As government policy is increasingly based on consultants’ reports, refusing access to those reports will make a mockery of the idea of open government and of democracy itself. As an academic I would also be very suspicious of any report that does not allow its methodology to be examined – and criticised – by others. It is only through such criticism that it will be put to the test. If the methodology used was so unusual as to be a commercial secret, then that in itself is cause for concern.

I hope you will reconsider your decision in the light of these arguments.”

FROM THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF DUNDEE CITY COUNCIL 26TH APRIL 2005

“I refer to your letter.

I agree that the information you have requested is exempt for the reasons the Legal Manager gave and also that it would not be in the public interest to disclose the information to you, again for the reasons he gave.

I therefore confirm the Legal Managers decision without modification…

It may be that the information you require can be made available to you from other documents if we have a better understanding of your request, and you may therefore wish to meet with us as an alternative to appealing to the Scottish information commissioner.”

FROM BUTTERBURN AND BUCKLEMAKER TENANTS ASSOCIATION TO THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF DUNDEE CITY COUNCIL 11TH JULY 2005

(After a group of tenants had met with him in the Council Offices)

“Thank you for meeting us last week, and please thank Mr McKenna for his prompt response to our question about council house rents. However, as you are aware, we remain disappointed that you will not let us see the DTZ Pieda report, and will continue to pursue our right to see this under the Freedom of Information Act. We wish to understand the reasoning behind the demolition decisions – a not unreasonable concern for tenants of the buildings, and also for all residents of Dundee who may in future be affected by such important decisions, and in whose name they have been taken.

Meanwhile, Alice through the Looking Glass like, we shall have to guess at the contents of that report – and those of your own officers – in order to ask questions, as you suggest. Our questions all refer to Butterburn and Bucklemaker Courts and the five Menzieshill multis, where there are already active tenants’ groups, and also to the Alexander Street multis, where we have contacts with tenants opposed to demolition. What we would like to know in each case is:

1) What is your assessment of the condition of the buildings at present? Including

a) What are their annual maintenance costs?

b) What work would need to be done to bring them up to the Scottish Housing Standard, and, if this has been costed, what would it cost?

2) What have been the annual turnover rates and the occupancy rates in the buildings in the last three years?

3) What is the size of the housing waiting list and how has this changed over the last three years?

4) I each case, what is the projected redistribution of tenants, ie where do the plans anticipate tenants moving to?

5) I each case, what are the plans for the land released, and what assessments have been done about the viability of existing shops, schools and other services after the demolitions?

6) What estimates have been made of demolition costs?

7) What percentage of Dundee Council houses does not currently meet the Scottish Standard, and what is the average cost of bringing them up to standard?

8) What is the basis for the statement in the report to the Housing Committee of 21st June 2004, that the ‘core sustainable demand for social rented housing in Dundee by 2008 will be circa 20,500 units’? And what is the basis fro the ‘assumption’ that 7,700 of these will be provided by other landlords, so reducing the council’s stock to 12,800 units?

We realise that we are asking your officers to do quite a bit of sorting through documents, but would remind you that we would be more than happy to do this work ourselves! You assure us of your own desire to see good council housing in Dundee, and we have no reason to disbelieve you. Indeed, we can see that it must be quite frustrating having to preside over the dismantling of so vital an asset that you previously helped grow and thrive. We, too, are concerned not only about the specific buildings mentioned above, but about the future of the city’s council housing as a whole. We know that you are not ultimately responsible for the political decisions of the council, but we cannot understand why you should refuse us access to the documents on which that decision is based.

At the same time as asking these specific questions, we would like to put in a formal request under the Freedom of Information Act to see all the reports prepared by the council officers on the condition of Dundee’s Council housing stock and the reasons for the proposed demolitions across the city.

We can assure you that we will continue to pursue these crucial issues through all possible channels, both here in Dundee, and, in co-operation with other tenants’ groups, at the Scottish Executive and the UK parliament.”

FROM DUNDEE CITY COUNCIL’S LEGAL MANAGER 1ST AUGUST 2005 “My Decision

I refer to your letter of 11 July 2005.

Section 12(1) of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 provides that Scottish public authorities are not obliged to comply with a request for information if the authority estimates that the cost of complying with the request would exceed such amount as may be prescribed in regulations made by the Scottish Ministers. The prescribed amount is currently £600.

It is estimated that the cost of complying with your request would exceed £600 and I therefore refuse your request.

Your Right to Appeal

If you are unhappy with this reply you may require the Council to review its actions and decisions in relation to your request.”

BUTTERBURN AND BUCKLEMAKER TENANTS ASSOCIATION ARE UNHAPPY ALL RIGHT – AND THERE IS GOING TO BE AN APPEAL!

About the author: TaysideTenants.Org has been set up by independent tenants groups in the Hilltown, and the Menzieshill area of Dundee – groups that were formed to counter the Council’s plans to demolish our homes and which we believe will destroy our communities. However we know that what is happening to us is part of a much bigger crisis in Dundee housing, and we hope that this website will be used by tenants across the city to share information and get our voices heard.

Sign In