Public Document Pack

CABINET

DATE: Wednesday, 27 March 2019

TIME: 5.30 pm

VENUE: Council Chamber - Civic Centre, St Luke's Avenue, Harrogate, HG1 2AE

Notice is hereby given that the above meeting will take place for the purpose following and, by virtue of Section 100B(4)(b) of the Local Government Act 1972, any other matter(s) which the Chair considers should be dealt with at the meeting as a matter of urgency.

AGENDA

Item Title Page Number 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE:

2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST: Members to advise of any declarations of interest.

3. MINUTES: 1 - 4 of the meeting of 27 February 2019.

4. EXEMPT INFORMATION: To determine whether to exclude the press and public during the consideration of any exempt information items – items 6 (part), 12 (part), 13, 14 and 15.

MATTERS TO BE REFERRED TO COUNCIL FOR CONSIDERATION

5. CAPITAL STRATEGY 2019/20: 5 - 22 The Financial Services Manager to submit a written report.

6. ULTRA LOW EMISSION VEHICLE STRATEGY: 23 - 78 The Strategic Transport Planner to submit a written report.

MATTERS TO BE DETERMINED BY CABINET

7. THE REVIEW OF THE OPERATION OF THE FREEDOM OF 79 - 258

Legal and Governance | Harrogate Borough Council | PO Box 787 | Harrogate | HG1 9RW 01423 500600 www.harrogate.gov.uk INFORMATION (FOI) SCHEME INCLUDING THE INTERNAL REVIEW PROCESS - FINAL REPORT FROM THE OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMISSION: The Chair of the Overview and Scrutiny Commission to submit a written report.

8. NON -DOMESTIC DISCRETIONARY RATES RELIEF POLICY 2019: 259 - The Revenues, Welfare and Customer Services Manager to submit a 282 written report.

9. RIPON CUSTOMER CENTRE DELIVERY: 283 - The Revenues, Welfare and Customer Services Manager to submit a 300 written report.

10. APPOINTMENT OF SUPPLIER FOR THE PROVISION OF 301 - BUILDING MATERIALS: 304 The Operations Manager to submit a written report.

11. KEY DECISIONS: FINANCIAL THRESHOLDS: 305 - The Democratic Services Manager to submit a written report. 308

12. RIPON LEISURE CENTRE – HARRY’S PLACE CHILDCARE: 309 - The Change Manager to submit a written report. 380

13. ACQUISITION OF EMPTY PROPERTIES: 381 - The Executive Officer (Strategic Property and Major Projects) to 392 submit a written report.

14. PROCUREMENT AND CONSTRUCTION OF TEMPORARY 393 - ACCOMMODATION FOR SINGLE HOMELESS PERSONS SPA 424 LANE: The Head of Housing and Property to submit a written report.

15. CIVIC CENTRE FINAL ACCOUNT POSITION: 425 - The Head of Legal and Governance to submit a written report. 444

MEMBERSHIP: Councillor Richard Cooper (Chair). Councillor Graham Swift, Councillor Rebecca Burnett, Councillor Mike Chambers, MBE, Councillor Phil Ireland, Councillor Stanley Lumley and Councillor Andrew Paraskos.

Members are reminded that in order to expedite business at the meeting and enable Officers to adapt their presentations to address areas causing difficulty, they are encouraged to contact Officers prior to the meeting with questions on technical issues in reports.

Members of the public are entitled to attend this meeting as observers for all those items taken in open session.

Legal and Governance | Harrogate Borough Council | PO Box 787 | Harrogate | HG1 9RW 01423 500600 www.harrogate.gov.uk The agenda papers may be examined at the Civic Centre, Harrogate and a copy may be purchased for £6.00.

Please contact Elizabeth Jackson, Democratic Services Manager, at the Civic Centre, if you have any queries or need further information on this agenda - telephone or email Tel: 01423 500600 Email: [email protected].

EMERGENCY PROCEDURES FOR MEETINGS – FIRE: On hearing the fire evacuation alarm, you should leave the building by the nearest safe fire exit. Once outside the building, please assemble in the corner of the visitor car park at the front of the building opposite the main entrance. Persons should not re-enter the building until authorised to do so by the Fire and Rescue Service or the Emergency Co-ordinator.

Legal and Governance | Harrogate Borough Council | PO Box 787 | Harrogate | HG1 9RW 01423 500600 www.harrogate.gov.uk This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 3

CABINET HELD ON 27 FEBRUARY 2019 (FROM 5.34 PM – 5.38 PM)

PRESENT: Councillor Richard Cooper in the Chair. Councillor Graham Swift, Councillor Rebecca Burnett, Councillor Mike Chambers, MBE, Councillor Phil Ireland and Councillor Stanley Lumley.

Late Arrivals: None

Early Departures: None

109/18 – APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE: An apology for absence had been received from Councillor Andy Paraskos. (5.34 pm)

110/18 – DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST: There were no declarations of interest made by Members at the meeting.

111/18 – MINUTES: The Minutes of the meeting of Cabinet held on 6 February 2019 were approved unanimously as a correct record and signed by the Chair. (5.34 pm)

112/18 – EXEMPT INFORMATION:

RESOLVED (UNANIMOUSLY):

That, in accordance with Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, in view of the nature of the business to be transacted, the meeting be not open to the public during the discussion of Minute 113/18 below as there will be a disclosure of exempt information as defined in Section 100I of the Act.

The exempt information in question relates to the financial or business affairs of any particular person, including the authority holding that information, as defined in paragraph 3 of Schedule 12(A) to the Act, as amended. (5.37 pm)

MATTERS TO BE DETERMINED BY CABINET

113/18 – COUNCIL TAX REDUCTION SCHEME: The Revenues, Welfare and Customer Services Manager submitted a written report which detailed the annual review of the Local Council Tax Reduction (CTR) Scheme, which was attached as an Appendix. CTR provided support for low-income households and was currently based on a means-test. The scheme was split between those of pension age and those of working age; the rules for pension age claimants were set by the government, however the rules for working age households were for the billing authority to determine. The scheme was aligned with Housing Benefit (HB) processes which allowed administrative efficiencies to be achieved. The introduction of Universal Credit (UC) in 2016 had introduced an

Page 1 CABINET additional level of complexity as the majority of new working age claims were claiming UC instead of HB and the administrative team were dealing with a range of complex legislation across two different benefit schemes.

It was therefore proposed that a review be undertaken during 2019/20 to ensure closer alignment between UC and the local CTR scheme, and that a new scheme be rolled out during the 2019/20 financial year. A review had been planned for 2018/19, however changes to the roll out of UC had led to the review being put back by a year.

The Council would receive a localising council tax support grant for administration purposes of £114,128 from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. Currently the scheme awarded approximately £7 million in CTR to nearly 8,000 households in the district, 13% of this was directly funded by HBC, with the remaining cost being borne by the other preceptors.

RESOLVED (UNANIMOUSLY):

That Harrogate Borough Council maintains the current Local Council Tax Reduction Scheme in its current format for 2019/20 but reflecting legislative changes that have come into effect since the 2018/19 scheme review.

Reasons for decision:

The current scheme provided financial assistance for low-income households in the district and supported the Council’s aims under its Welfare Strategy.

Legislation required the Council Tax Reduction policy to be approved on an annual basis by 11 March preceding the start of the financial year the policy applied to.

Alternative options considered and rejected:

To make no changes to the scheme. This was not a viable option as the Council must reflect national legislative changes in the local scheme.

Any change made under local discretion would mean disruption in service provision and add complexity to welfare support provision. Changing the scheme would mean reducing support for the most financially vulnerable placing increased pressure on low-income households in the district.

(5.35 pm – 5.36 pm)

(D)

114/18 – ALLHALLOWGATE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT: FORWARD PLAN REF 007HP18: Further to Cabinet Minute 47/17, the Acting Executive Officer (Property Services) submitted a written report which provided an update on site investigation work in relation to the redevelopment of Allhallowgate flats. This housing project sought to demolish poor quality properties and replace them with modern affordable housing,

2 Page 2 CABINET as well as improving the remaining adjacent flats at the site. Extensive site investigations had been carried out resulting in the consultants recommending a design strategy which was considered to be both cost effective and practicable on site.

The report and its appendices set out the background to the project and details of work undertaken to date. Full details of project costings and funding secured from Homes England for the project were included at Appendix C and a detailed consideration of project risks was attached at Appendix D.

Cabinet were requested to determine whether to progress with construction of both the new build flats and the refurbishment of the retained block.

RESOLVED (UNANIMOUSLY):

That (1) the outcome of the site investigations and how they have informed the sub-structure design, associated risk and cost be noted;

(2) the option to progress with the redevelopment of the Allhallowgate flats site now provides for the provision of 6 new townhouses, 12 new flats and the refurbishment of the retained block of 12 flats be noted;

(3) (see exempt Minute)

(4) on the basis of (2) and (3) above the Council progress with the project to construct new build properties and refurbish the retained block of flats;

(5) provided that the revised Contract Sum does not exceed the estimated construction cost set out in Appendix C, the Cabinet Member for Housing and Safer Communities be given delegated authority to accept a revised Contract Sum. Should the construction cost estimate be exceeded by the revised Contract Sum, the matter would be returned to Cabinet for decision; and

(6) (see exempt Minute)

Reasons for decision:

Cabinet agreed to undertake this project on 20 August 2014, in order to secure the long-term future of the social housing on this site, improving its quality and the contribution it makes to its historical, city-centre location.

The original successful tenderer, Geo. Houlton & Sons Ltd of Hull, (Houlton’s) has been a good working partner to date and has promised an “open book”, value engineered approach to the preparation of the revised construction costs and to conducting the contract thereafter.

Conditional delegation to the Cabinet Member will expedite swift progress to the start of construction should Cabinet choose to proceed.

The additional budget provision can be met by a combination of the Housing

3 Page 3 CABINET

Revenue Account (HRA) working balance and potential further grant funding from Homes England of £360k (to be confirmed). There will be no impact on the General Fund.

Alternative options considered and rejected:

Various draft proposals for possible other options for the site in the event that the recommendations (2) and (3) of this report are not agreed, were given at Appendix J. Further work would be necessary to develop and refine these.

There would be a minimum additional cost of approximately £150k should recommendations (2) and (3) not be agreed, in order to comply with Condition 17 of Planning Permission reference 16/00045/DVCCMAJ, “Should the Ground Stability Report submitted under Condition 13 identify that the site is not developable, a revised scheme of landscaping for the whole of the site affected by demolition shall be submitted for the written approval of the Local Planning Authority and thereafter implemented in accordance with approved scheme. Such scheme shall identify species, planting densities and timing of proposed works.” The condition was imposed to safeguard the visual amenity of the locality which lies within a Ripon Conservation area.

(Item dealt with in exempt session)

(There is also an Unpublished Minute containing further recommendations)

(5.36 pm – 5.38 pm)

(D)

4 Page 4 Agenda Item 5

Agenda Item No. 5

REPORT TO: Management Board Cabinet

DATE: 18 March 2019 27 March 2019

SERVICE AREA: Finance

REPORTING OFFICER: Financial Services Manager (Graham Byrne)

SUBJECT: Capital Strategy 2019/20

WARD/S AFFECTED: ALL DISTRICT

FORWARD PLAN REF: N/A

1.0 PURPOSE OF REPORT

1.1 To present the Capital Strategy for 2019/20, a newly-required document instigated by a change to CIPFA’s Prudential Code. It includes an Investment Strategy for non-financial investments, as required by the government’s updated statutory guidance for local government investments.

2.0 RECOMMENDATION

2.1 That the Capital Strategy for 2019/20 at Appendix 1 is approved.

3.0 RECOMMENDED REASONS FOR DECISION

3.1 The council is required under CIPFA’s Prudential Code for Capital Finance in Local Authorities to produce a Capital Strategy in 2019/20 and subsequent years.

3.2 The council is required to agree an Investment Strategy, which includes discussion of investments in non-financial assets, by the Statutory Guidance on Local Government Investments, as published by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG).

4.0 ALTERNATIVE OPTION CONSIDERED AND RECOMMENDED FOR REJECTION

4.1 Not to adopt the Capital Strategy. Not recommended as it is a requirement of CIPFA’s Prudential Code to have such a strategy in place and MHCLG require councils to publish an Investment Strategy that has regard to Page 5 1

investment in both financial and non-financial assets.

5.0 THE REPORT

5.1 Recent years have seen a sharp upturn in local authorities making investments in non-financial assets in order to generate income streams to support their revenue budgets. In some cases, the scale of these investments has been large, particularly in relation to the size of the authorities involved.

5.2 In response to these investments in particular, CIPFA have updated their Prudential Code for Capital Finance in Local Authorities (‘the Prudential Code’) and MHCLG have updated their Statutory Guidance for on Local Government Investments.

5.3 The Prudential Code requires councils to have in place a Capital Strategy for 2019/20 in order to demonstrate that the authority takes capital expenditure and investment decisions in line with service objectives and properly takes account of stewardship, value for money, prudence, sustainability and affordability. The strategy should set out the long-term context in which capital expenditure and investment decisions are made and give due consideration to both risk and reward and impact on the achievement of priority outcomes. The Strategy is presented at Appendix 1.

5.4 Treasury investments (investments of cash balances) have been discussed and approved for 2019/20 as part of the Treasury Management Annual Strategy that was presented to Cabinet in February 2019. The Capital Strategy includes an Investment Strategy in relation to non-financial assets, as required by the MHCLG statutory guidance.

6.0 REQUIRED ASSESSMENTS AND IMPLICATIONS

6.1 The following were considered: Financial Implications; Human Resources Implications; Legal Implications; ICT Implications; Strategic Property/Asset Management Considerations; Risk Assessment; Equality and Diversity (the Public Sector Equality Duty and impact upon people with protected characteristics). If applicable, the outcomes of any consultations, assessments, considerations and implications considered necessary during preparation of this report are detailed below.

6.2 Financial implications: The report has been prepared by Finance and financial considerations are incorporated in the report and appendix.

6.3 Legal implications: Section 15(1) of the Local Government Act 2003 requires that in relation to capital finance a local authority should “have regard (a) to such guidance as the Secretary of State may issue”. This guidance is found in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government Guidance on Local Authority Investments updated February 2018 and includes a wider definition of investments to include non-financial assets held primarily for generating income return, typically investment property and also loans.

Page 6 2

7.0 CONCLUSIONS

7.1 The Capital Strategy 2019/20 as enclosed at Appendix 1 ensures that we comply with CIPFA’s Prudential Code and MHCLG’s Statutory Guidance on Local Government Investments and supports the Council’s integrated revenue, capital and balance sheet planning.

Background Papers –

OFFICER CONTACT: Please contact Graham Byrne, Financial Services Manager, if you require any further information on the contents of this report. The officer can be contacted at Finance, PO Box 787, Harrogate, HG1 9RW; by telephone on 01423 500600 ext 58564; or by e-mail at [email protected]

Page 7 3

This page is intentionally left blank Appendix 1 Capital Strategy 2019/20

Introduction

1. The Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA) Prudential Code for Capital Finance in Local Authorities requires, in 2019/20, local authorities to produce a capital strategy in order to demonstrate that capital expenditure and investment decisions are taken in line with service or organisational objectives and take account of stewardship, value for money, prudence, sustainability and affordability.

2. The capital strategy is a key document for the Council and forms part of the authority’s revenue, capital, balance sheet and reserves planning. It provides:

 a high level overview of how capital expenditure, capital financing and treasury management activity contribute to the provision of services  an overview of how associated risk is managed  the implications for future financial sustainability

3. The aim of the capital strategy is to provide an understanding of the Council’s overall long- term objectives, governance procedures, allocation and monitoring of capital expenditure and risk appetite.

4. The capital strategy is reported separately from the Treasury Management Strategy; treasury investments will be reported through the Treasury Management Strategy and non-treasury investments will be reported through the capital strategy. This ensures the separation of the core treasury function under security, liquidity and yield principles, and the non-treasury function where the policy for service and commercial investments are usually associated with capital expenditure in relation to an asset.

Capital expenditure

5. Expenditure is classified as capital expenditure when it results in the acquisition, construction or enhancement of an asset (for example land, buildings, equipment) that will benefit the council for a period greater than one year. The definition extends to expenditure on grants or loans to other bodies that they will use to fund expenditure that the Council would have classed as capital had it incurred the expenditure itself. Classification as capital is subject to the application of a deminimis of £10,000 for land and buildings and £5,000 for equipment, per the accounting policies set in the Council’s annual Statement of Accounts.

Asset Management Planning

6. Developing a long-term approach to managing our assets has been a particular focus in recent years.

7. This approach has a number of aspects, including: - rationalising the current asset base so we only retain assets that help us deliver our priorities, - maintaining the assets we do retain so that we can maximise the return from them and provide the best possible services to our residents, Page 9 - identifying opportunities for acquiring new assets that help us further achieve our corporate objectives, - demonstrating flexibility in the way we fund such activity so that we get the most from our financial resources.

8. In terms of managing our assets, we have recognised that by taking a proactive approach to asset management we can ensure the return from them is maximised. A key development in this area was the introduction of the previous Capital Strategy and subsequent Capital and Investment Programme. The previous strategy was initially approved in October 2016, following a comprehensive review of existing resources and asset needs, and will ensure our assets are maintained appropriately and funding available to us is used where it is needed the most. 9. Whilst the strategy was initially fully funded, the latest programme highlights a shortfall in funding in the medium-term. This will need to be carefully monitored, in order to ensure that the programme remains sustainable and we have sufficient resources going forward to fund all priority works. Key influences on the overall plan will include:  Leisure Provision Review  HCC Future Strategy  ICT Strategy  Economic Growth and Commercial Property

10. The Strategic Planning team play a key role in developing and refining the 25 year capital programme, utilising their knowledge of the asset portfolio to assess maintenance and investment priorities, costs and timescales. The Sustainable Harrogate Project Board will be responsible for:

 Overseeing implementation of the HBC Asset Management Framework to ensure that the Council’s land and property assets are managed in a consistent and strategic manner

 Managing and prioritising a rolling programme of corporate ‘Asset Challenge Reviews’

 Recommending options from these reviews to Place Board, Management Board (MB), Cabinet, Council (in line with Council’s decision making processes)

 Devising mechanisms and processes for strategically assessing property and land proposals on a consistent, corporate basis

 Ensuring linkages between strategic asset management work and the Council’s capital and revenue budget programmes

 Promoting Housing Delivery.

11. A Strategic Asset Review is currently being undertaken, with the assistance of external experts, in order to give us a detailed overview of our asset portfolio. This will present the Council with information regarding which assets require significant investment, development opportunities that may exist and potential options to dispose of assets that no longer support our priorities. This will allow the Council to make informed decisions about which assets to invest in, and which to look to dispose of or redevelop. This will potentially

Page 10 Page 2 have a significant impact on the capital expenditure programme, whilst also potentially generating capital receipts with which to fund the prioritised works.

Capital and Investment Programme

12. Non-Housing capital expenditure, as well as ‘investment’ expenditure classified as revenue expenditure, is reported and approved as part of the Capital and Investment Programme (C&IP). The original strategy set out a 25 year forecast programme of expenditure on assets and the associated funding requirements, which is updated on a rolling basis with a more detailed programme for the forthcoming five years. This is a key document that captures the full extent of the Council’s planned non-Housing capital expenditure and associated funding.

13. The Council has historically had a moderate capital programme, with some notable major projects, but the scale of investment required going forward is potentially increasing. Major projects in varying stages of planning and development include Ripon Pool, the Station Gateway development in Harrogate, and the redevelopment of the Harrogate Convention Centre, as well as ongoing investment in ICT infrastructure and software through the ICT strategy and development plan. Historically, major projects have generally solely involved the Council. The Station Gateway project is an example of a new approach, as it involves a number of major stakeholders working together on a large scale project. Careful monitoring of the C&IP and associated funding will be key to ensuring that the Council has the resources to invest in its priority projects.

14. Harrogate’s latest Corporate Plan was approved by Council in December 2017 and the timespan was extended by Cabinet in June 2018 to cover the years 2018 to 2024 to align with our revised transformation programme. This sets out our long term vision for the Harrogate district, our aim as an organisation, our corporate priorities and the long term outcomes that we want to achieve. Each year we publish our corporate delivery plan, which details what we will do, what our targets are and how we will measure these. It comprises the following four priorities: i) A Strong Local Economy ii) A Sustainable Environment iii) Supporting our Communities iv) Excellent Public Services

15. Clearly it is key that all expenditure, be it revenue or capital, is allocated in order to support these priorities. The C&IP and capital strategy link to other key Council strategies. The Council’s corporate priorities are overarching in their application to prioritising spend, whilst capital projects are a key feature of the Council’s transformation programme, 2024. The programme also links to the Council’s Medium Term Financial Strategy.

Page 11 Page 3

Page 12 Page 4 Governance – non-Housing programme

16. Each year, the Capital and Investment Programme is updated and the detailed five-year programme is reported to Management Board (MB), before approval by Cabinet and Council in February alongside the revenue budget. Once the programme is approved, the schemes set out within the programme have their individual spending levels approved plus a 10% contingency, though the relevant officer will still need to adhere to the contract procedure rules.

17. The reporting of the Capital and Investment Programme monitoring has been aligned with the current revenue monitoring, which requires a quarter one report in August in addition to the mid-year (November), quarter three (February) and outturn (June) reports.

18. As is the nature with capital and investment works, expenditure may be delayed, vary and in some cases may cease, as well as new schemes being identified. New spending approvals will therefore be sought in the quarterly monitoring reports and the implications for the Capital and Investment Programme and the strategy as a whole will be made clear.

19. For works that are emergency in nature, the Director of Economy and Culture has delegated responsibility to approve works up to the value of £50k (funded from the Council Investment Reserve (CIR)) in circumstances where the consequence of not undertaking the works will lead to a health and safety risk, a legal risk, a serious service disruption, a significant loss of income to the council or the loss of opportunity to achieve a significant saving. Such expenditure will be reported at the next possible opportunity.

20. Approvals to spend are limited to the amounts approved in the programme, plus a 10% contingency if required. It is important that value for money is sought with all expenditure and spending should not take place just because a budget exists. Equally, unnecessary works should not be undertaken in order to exhaust the budget (and contingency). Though the Capital Strategy was developed to fund investment in the Council’s assets to support service delivery and the Council’s priorities, works should be delayed where it does not have a detrimental effect on the quality of the services the Council provides. The on-going success of the strategy will likely require budget savings against individual schemes/asset purchases to help fund schemes where cost overruns prove inevitable and to fund new emerging works.

21. Where savings are generated against individual schemes/asset purchases the saving is to the Council as a whole, not the service where the saving has been achieved. The service should not be looking to identify other areas where it wishes to spend the saving on and it should not spend the saving on works for which the original funding was not provided. This will allow decisions to be taken in the round at a strategic level, though operational needs will be considered.

22. As part of the monitoring arrangements, where services do identify new spending needs these will be considered in the context of the strategy as a whole and, where insufficient funding is available in total, competing requests will be considered together. Unsuccessful requests may be considered again in the future.

23. As part of the monitoring arrangements in relation to property assets, Strategic Property, supported by Financial Services, meet with service officers to review and update the programme and to ensure that new approvals are sought on a timely basis to allow the

Page 13 Page 5 works to be progressed. For other assets, the relevant service officer will discuss the new requirements with Financial Services.

24. Where expenditure does not take place in the year of the approved programme the funding will be retained to fund the expenditure in the following year, should it still be required. The initial approval will hold, though the programme in the new year will be updated for any delayed works and as such will be re-approved. This, however, is subject to the need to delay or delete works to balance the overall programme. All proposed spend will be continually reviewed, particularly where it continues to be delayed.

Governance – Housing capital expenditure

25. Capital expenditure on Housing assets is reported separately, in line with the statutory divide between General Fund services and Housing Revenue Account services. Housing capital expenditure is approved through the ‘Housing Improvement Programme’ (HIP) report, which is presented to Cabinet Member (Housing and Safer Communities) in January each year, before approval by Cabinet and Council in February.

26. Monitoring is undertaken on a monthly basis throughout the year, and is report to Cabinet Member and Cabinet at quarter 2, at quarter 3 (as part of the budget report) and outturn.

27. Approvals for variations in spending, or for new schemes, can be sought through these reports or via separate reports to Cabinet Member and Cabinet as necessary.

Funding

28. Capital expenditure can be funded from a number of sources, as follows:

a) Capital grants and contributions – although funding opportunities can be limited, where possible, external contributions to projects are sought. For example, Housing have worked successfully with Homes England (formerly Homes and Communities Agency) for a number of years, securing significant grant contributions to assist in providing social and shared ownership housing. b) Capital receipts – amounts generated from the sale of assets and from the repayment of capital loans, grants or other financial assistance. These can be an important part of the funding for major projects. There is currently a strategic asset review being undertaken, which, amongst other things, will identify surplus and poorly performing assets for potential disposal. Historically, the Council has utilised Housing capital receipts to fund Housing capital expenditure, although the ringfence that applies to Housing Revenue Account revenue funds does not apply to capital sums. c) Revenue contributions – amounts set aside from the revenue budget or reserve. The Council Investment Reserve was established in 2015/16 to consolidate all reserve balances that relate to capital and investment works. This ensures that all available funding is easily identified. There is an annual budgeted contribution from revenue to this reserve, which in 2019/20 will be £2,883k. Revenue contributions are also a key element of the funding for the Housing capital programme, as the Housing Revenue Account creates annual surpluses, which can then be reinvested in the Housing stock. d) Section 106 Planning obligations – developer contributions received in lieu of provision of open space or housing provision. Ringfenced to provide facilities in line with the individual section 106 agreements. e) Borrowing – either internal (where cash balances allow) or external borrowing. Currently, the only external borrowing held is for loans that were taken out to fund the

Page 14 Page 6 ‘self-financing’ payment required to be paid to Government in 2012 for the HRA to buy itself out of the previous Housing Subsidy system. Because of the healthy cash balances that the Council has held over recent years, internal borrowing has been used as a source of funding for some major projects, including the civic centre construction. This has been an effective strategy as it has avoided the cost of external borrowing and has mitigated the risks and difficulties associated with investing cash balances. f) Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) – this is similar to Section 106 funding, in that it is a levy on development, to be spent on local and sub-regional infrastructure needed to support new development in the area, but it is applicable to a wider range of developments and does not have to spent on infrastructure that is directly related to the development in question. The Council is currently in the process of setting up CIL and it is envisaged that it will be adopted in Autumn 2019.

29. Generally, funding sources would be used in the following order:

1) Section 106 contributions – because there are time limits within which they must be utilised (though noting that they are ringfenced for spending on affordable housing or open spaces, in line with the individual section 106 agreements). 2) Capital grants and contributions – again, because there can be time limits within which they must be used or other conditions associated with the provision of the grant. 3) Capital receipts and CIL – because they can only be used to fund capital expenditure and cannot be used to fund revenue expenditure. 4) Revenue contributions – reserve balances will be utilised next, as there is no cost to revenue other than the cost of interest lost by virtue of reducing the cash balance held by the Council. Direct contributions from revenue will be used where it is affordable. 5) Borrowing – internal borrowing will be utilised ahead of external borrowing, due to the lower interest cost. External borrowing will be the last option, due to the higher interest costs that are chargeable to revenue.

Capital Financing Requirement and Borrowing

30. The Council is required to comply with CIPFA’s Prudential Code for Capital Finance (the ‘Prudential Code’) when assessing the affordability, prudence and sustainability of its capital investment plans.

31. Fundamental to the prudential framework is a requirement to set a series of prudential indicators. These indicators are intended to collectively build a picture that demonstrates the impact over time of the Council’s expenditure plans upon the revenue budget and upon borrowing and investment levels, and explain the overall controls that will ensure that the activity remains affordable, prudent and sustainable. These prudential indicators have been agreed as part of the Treasury Management Strategy in February 2019. One of the key indicators focuses on the Capital Financing Requirement (CFR).

32. When capital expenditure is funded from borrowing, this does not result in expenditure being funded immediately, but instead results in an annual charge to the revenue budget over a number of years in the form of Minimum Revenue Provision (MRP).

33. The forward projections of the CFR reflect:

 Additional capital expenditure from borrowing or further credit arrangements resulting in an increase to the CFR; and

Page 15 Page 7  Revenue budget provision being made for the repayment of debt, which results in a reduction to the CFR

34. The actual CFR for 2017/18 and forward projections for the current and forthcoming years are as follows:

Item 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 Actual Latest Estimate Estimate Estimate forecast £k £k £k £k £k Opening CFR 82,056 84,394 83,595 85,294 84,540 New borrowing in year 2,918 0 2,467 0 0 (GF) Statutory MRP charge -580 -799 -768 -754 -824 to revenue (GF) Voluntary set aside 0 0 0 0 -15,000 (HRA) Closing CFR 84,394 83,595 85,294 84,540 68,716

The closing CFR is split between the General Fund and HRA as follows: General Fund 23,638 22,414 24,113 23,359 22,535 Housing Revenue Acc 60,756 61,181 61,181 61,181 46,181

35. Depending on the level of capital investment undertaken, the CFR could vary. Also, in June 2018, Cabinet approved that the strategy of the HRA Business Plan be revised from one of debt repayment to one of housing growth. In 2020/21, a £15m loan (part of those taken out to fund self-financing) falls due for repayment. It is therefore possible that the currently planned voluntary set aside of debt may not take place, and this loan could be refinanced either in full or in part.

36. The CFR shows how much capital expenditure has historically been funded from borrowing and therefore how much remains to be funded in future. In relation to the General Fund CFR, it is a requirement of the Capital Finance Regulations that an annual charge is made to the revenue budget in order to pay off a portion of the debt. This is called Minimum Revenue Provision (MRP). As part of the Treasury Management Strategy, the Annual MRP Statement was set out and agreed.

37. The Capital Finance Regulations require that local authorities set aside a ‘prudent’ amount of MRP to repay debt. The regulations set out a number of options to support this calculation. For debt incurred prior to 1 April 2008, MRP is charged at a rate of 4% of the balance of outstanding debt. For debt incurred after 1 April 2008, a charge is made based on dividing the total borrowed over the lifetime of the asset that the borrowing relates to, on a straight-line basis.

38. There is not the same requirement for the Housing Revenue Account to pay MRP – although the HRA can make voluntary set asides to reduce debt levels, it can, theoretically, maintain debt levels indefinitely, albeit with the associated interest costs. For external borrowings, the HRA pays interest to the PWLB, whilst it pays interest to the General Fund on the remainder of its CFR.

39. The Council’s gross debt position is summarised below. The table shows the actual external debt against the underlying CFR, and the resulting over or under borrowing.

Page 16 Page 8

2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 Actual Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate £k £k £k £k £k External Debt External Debt at 31 0 0 0 0 0 March - GF CFR - GF 23,638 22,414 24,113 23.359 22,535 Under/(over) 23,638 22,414 24,113 23,359 22,535 borrowing - GF External Debt at 31 53,082 53,077 53,073 53,067 38,061 March - HRA CFR – HRA 60,756 61,181 61,181 61,181 46,181 Under/(over) 7,674 8,104 8,108 8,114 8,120 borrowing - HRA

40. Statutory guidance states that debt should remain below the CFR, except in the short-term for cash flow management purposes. As can be seen from the table above, the level of external debt is significantly below the level of CFR. It should be noted that all external debt relates to the HRA; the General Fund does not have any external debt and nor is it currently forecast to. That said, this will need to be reviewed in light of the major capital projects that are currently in the planning stages.

41. As part of the Treasury Management Strategy, limits are set for the amount of external debt that can be taken on, in order to ensure that debt remains at acceptable and affordable levels.

Investment Strategy - Non-financial assets 42. Treasury investments – investments of cash balances – are dealt with as part of the Treasury Management Strategy that was approved by Council in March 2019. CIPFA’s latest Treasury Management Code requires authorities to incorporate non-financial investments within the capital strategy. Separately, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) updated its Statutory Guidance on Local Authority Investments in 2018, which sets out disclosures and reporting requirements in relation to investments.

Service investment - loans 43. The Council can lend money to local bodies or its subsidiaries to support local public services and stimulate local economic growth. 44. We are in the process of establishing Bracewell Homes Ltd, a wholly-owned company that is being established to provide shared ownership housing in the district. The investment in this company will be classed as capital expenditure (and has been included in the Capital and Investment Programme). Some initial funding will be provided in 2019/20 in order for the company to pay the deposit on the first batch of houses it will be purchasing, before the company starts operating fully in 2020/21. The funding provided will be a mixture of equity and loan. The loans made to the company are not forecast to exceed £300k and are currently expected to be repaid in full by 31 March 2024. This is the only planned loan at present.

Page 17 Page 9 45. The main risk when making service loans is that the borrower will be unable to repay the principal lent and/or the interest due. In order to limit this risk, and to ensure that the total exposure to service loans remains proportionate to the size of the Council, an upper limit on the outstanding exposure has initially been set at £1.5m. This will accommodate the loans to the housing company, but can reviewed in future should it be beneficial to increase it. 46. Accounting standards require the Council to set aside loss allowance for loans, reflecting the likelihood of non-payment. The figures for loans in the Council’s statement of accounts from 2018/19 onwards will be shown net of this loss allowance. However, the Council makes every reasonable effort to collect the full sum lent and has appropriate credit control arrangements in place to recover overdue repayments. 47. Risk assessment: A business case was constructed for the Housing company, with external consultants utilised to scrutinise and challenge the assumptions and projections therein. A risk analysis was carried out as part of the business case. The performance of the company will be kept under careful review via quarterly meetings of the Housing company board. Service investment - shares 48. The Council does not currently invest in any shares but will do so once the Housing company is established by virtue of the company being a wholly owned subsidiary. The investment is currently expected to be £200k in total, although the limit will be set at £750k in order to permit some flexibility in the equity/loan split to the company. The Council currently has no other plans to invest in shares. 49. Risk assessment: One of the risks of investing in shares is that they can fall in value, potentially meaning that the initial outlay will not be recovered. As described above, a risk analysis was carried out as part of the Housing company business plan. It is forecast that the company should grow successfully and the performance of the company will be kept under careful review via quarterly meetings of the company board, so that remedial action can be taken if necessary. 50. Liquidity: although this type of investment is fundamentally illiquid, the limit on the level of investment mitigates the risk and the Council will earn a return from the company via dividends. Non-specified investments 51. Shares are the only investment type that the Council has identified that meets the definition of a non-specified investment in the government guidance. The limits above in relation to share investments are therefore also the Council’s required upper limits on non- specified investments. The Council does not foresee making any other investments that would meet the definition of non-specified investments in future. Investment Properties 52. The Council owns a small number of ‘investment properties’, as defined in CIPFA’s Code of Practice on Local Authority Accounting. These are land and building assets held solely to earn rentals or for capital appreciation or both. These are all assets that have been held by the Council for a long time and no historic cost information is held in relation to them. They are measured at fair value and these values are updated annually, which ensures that the values reflect current market conditions at the end of each reporting period. The latest fair values are shown in the table below:

53.

Page 18 Page 10 Property by type Fair value Projected fair Projected 31/3/2018 value 31/3/2019 increase or £k £k decrease(-) in value £k Shopping centre 3,950 3,500 -450 Secondary industrial land 701 813 112 Garage block 78 150 72 Total 4,729 4,463 -266

54. There is no outstanding debt in relation to the purchase of any of these assets. In 2019/20, we are budgeting to receive £246k of income in relation to these assets, whilst running costs are less than £1k; the net income supports the Council’s General Fund revenue budget. As such, the fair values of the assets are considered to retain sufficient value to provide security of investment. Any losses in fair value would not in themselves change this; so long as the assets are generating a net income, they are supporting the revenue budget. For the same reason, although these are not highly liquid assets, as they would take time to sell, this is not considered to be a problem at present. 55. No other commercial investments are currently planned, but opportunities may arise from the Strategic Asset Review and may be sought through the ‘Commercial Harrogate’ aspect of the 2024 programme. Any such schemes would be subject to careful assessment, with external experts involved if necessary, and would be approved through Transformation Board and Cabinet. Due regard would be given to the statutory guidance issued by MHCLG and CIPFA’s Prudential Code when assessing any potential investments. Proportionality 56. As stated above, the net income generated from investment property supports the revenue budget. However, it is currently a small proportion of the net revenue stream (income from Council Tax, Business Rates and general government grants), as shown below: 2017/18 Actual 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 £k Forecast Budget Projected £k £k Budget £k Net revenue stream – 21,217 23,716 23,655 20,535 General Fund Investment 270 275 246 246 income Proportion 1.3% 1.2% 1.0% 1.2%

Investment is therefore considered to be ‘proportional’ at present, and a higher percentage could be accommodated. The Council is not overly reliant on investment income to balance its budget and no borrowing capacity is currently allocated to this type of income generation. 57. Gross debt is compared to net revenue stream below. The figures shown relate to the HRA, as the General Fund does not currently have any external debt.

Page 19 Page 11 2017/18 Actual 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 £k Forecast Budget Projected £k £k Budget £k Gross Debt 53,082 53,073 53,067 38,061 Net revenue 18,553 17,903 17,756 18,276 stream – HRA Ratio 2.86 : 1 2.96 : 1 2.99 : 1 2.08 : 1

The debt all relates to the loans that were taken out to fund the ‘self-financing’ payment required to be paid to Government in 2012 for the HRA to buy itself out of the previous Housing Subsidy system. When self-financing was implemented, the government set a ‘borrowing cap’ for the Council of £84,181k; if the HRA had borrowed up to this amount, the ratio in 2019/20 would have been 4.74 : 1. Borrowing caps were removed in October 2018 and so the HRA can now borrow more if it is affordable to do so. At present, debt levels are therefore within reasonable bounds.

Capacity, skills and culture 58. The Council recognises that those elected members and statutory officers involved in the investment decision making process must have appropriate capacity, skills and information to enable them to:  take informed decisions as to whether to enter into a specific investment;  assess individual assessments in the context of the strategic objectives and risk profile of the Council;  enable them to understand how new decisions have changed the overall risk exposure of the Council. If the Council starts making any such investments, the Council will ensure that the relevant officers and members of Audit and Governance Committee and Cabinet have appropriate skills, providing training and external support where necessary. 59. The Council will also ensure that those involved in negotiating any commercial deals are aware of the core principles of the prudential framework and of the regulatory regime within which local authorities operate, particularly if they are external experts from the private sector, who may not be so familiar with the role and priorities of local authorities.

Chief Finance Officer Statement 60. The chief finance officer should report on the affordability and risk associated with the capital strategy. 61. At present, the non-housing capital programme is affordable in the short- to medium-term, though following the approval of the ICT Strategy is not fully funded beyond the medium term. In addition, the programme may come under increasing pressure, as significant projects are come forward – for example, Leisure provision review, Station Gateway and Harrogate Convention Centre redevelopment. It may be necessary to reprioritise schemes if funding is insufficient to do everything and we are increasingly likely to need to externally borrow in order to support our priorities.

Page 20 Page 12 62. The housing capital programme is reviewed in terms of its impact on the HRA 30-year business plan and is affordable in its present form. This will be kept under careful review if plans come forward to increase borrowing in order to increase housing supply. 63. We are in a strong position, and the Strategic Asset Review will assist us in focussing on those assets that can support our priorities the most, be it through investment, redevelopment or, in some cases, disposal. 64. We are in a fortunate position that, to date, we have not had to rely on commercial investments as an alternative source of income. This type of investment is more risky than the traditional treasury investments. That said, we will look at potential opportunities through the 2024 programme as we look to develop and grow into an ever-more self- sustainable council.

Page 21 Page 13 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 6

Agenda Item No. 6

NOT FOR PUBLICATION: Appendix C to this report contains information considered to be exempt under Paragraph 3 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972 as amended

REPORT TO: Cabinet

DATE: 27 March 2019

SERVICE AREA: Place Shaping and Economic Growth

REPORTING OFFICER: Strategic Transport Planner (Tom Horner)

SUBJECT: HBC ULTRA-LOW EMISSION VEHICLE STRATEGY

WARD/S AFFECTED: All

FORWARD PLAN REF: N/A

1.0 PURPOSE OF THE REPORT

1.1 To outline the objectives and actions in the Harrogate Borough Council (HBC) Ultra-Low Emission Vehicle (ULEV) Strategy and to seek approval to accept the strategy as council policy.

2.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

2.1 That Cabinet approves the adoption of the ULEV Strategy as current Harrogate Borough Council policy; noting in particular that the strategy outlines a demand-responsive approach to implementation of publically available electric vehicle charge points, which carries potential financial implications for infrastructure and ongoing revenue costs.

3.0 RECOMMENDED REASONS FOR DECISIONS

3.1 The ULEV Strategy is a key component of the HBC Air Quality Action Plan. An ULEV strategy is specifically required to cater for the expected increase in electric vehicle use in the coming years, to ensure the local visitor economy is not disadvantaged and to help achieve the ambition for the council to be a leading district authority in the country for electric vehicle infrastructure provision.

3.2 The approach in the strategy is through implementation of a ten point action plan, which includes installation of a publically available charging network Page 23 1

through a demand-responsive approach. This approach enables the council to react quickly to changing market conditions without over commitment to an emerging technology. The strategy represents a flexible way of incentivising ULEV use without adversely affecting traffic congestion.

4.0 ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS CONSIDERED AND RECOMMENDED FOR REJECTION

4.1 Not developing a ULEV strategy is recommended for rejection. The UK government has stated that it will introduce a ban on petrol and diesel car sales by 2040. It is therefore necessary to prepare the district by incentivising the uptake of EVs and implementing the required charging infrastructure. It is worth noting that Harrogate District currently has lower levels of EV charging provision than neighbouring authorities such as York and Leeds.

4.2 Two other directions for the strategy were rejected, these were; minimal intervention and widespread implementation of charge points. The former was rejected as it was not felt to fulfil the aims of the council and the latter rejected as significant investment in emerging technology is risky and a demand responsive approach is preferable which provides flexibility and ambition without overproviding.

5.0 ULEV STRATEGY: KEY POINTS

5.1 The ULEV Strategy is attached as Appendix A. The draft ULEV strategy has been through a full public consultation and was also considered by the Overview and Scrutiny Commission on 4th March 2019, a response to the questions/issues raised at that meeting are outlined in Appendix D. Key points from the strategy are outlined below.

5.2 Background:

 There are four Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs) in the Harrogate District. The ULEV strategy will help to improve local air quality by ensuring the overall vehicle profile on roads across the district is cleaner.  According to government data, the number of plug-in vehicles in the district is constantly increasing, in common with the national trend. A total of 389 new plug-in vehicles were registered in Harrogate in quarter three of 2018, up from 328 in the quarter four of 2017, 196 in the last quarter of 2016 and only 25 in the last quarter of 2013. In total 1073 new plug-in vehicles were registered in Harrogate District in the first three quarters of 2018 with Harrogate District seeing a faster rate of growth in plug-in vehicle registrations than any other district in North Yorkshire and York.  There is a lack of publicly accessible charge points available across the district with a significant number of residents and visitors making enquiries about the availability of electric charging points.  Most EV users prefer to charge at home. However, there is demand for destination-based charging, this is particularly important for the Page 24 2

visitor economy.  It will be important not to overprovide infrastructure and waste public money. Understanding what can be implemented and at what cost will be crucial to ensure that as the technology develops, the council is ready to respond.  It is worth noting that this strategy is not looking to increase the number of private vehicles within the district but to provide the required incentives and information for existing and potential private car users to switch to ULEVs.

5.3 Vision and aims of the strategy:

5.4 Vision: “For Harrogate Borough Council to implement an ambitious and forward-looking electric vehicle programme, and be among the best councils for electric vehicles in the country.”

5.5 The aims are to;

 Increase provision of public electric vehicle charging infrastructure across the district; and  Increase the proportion of vehicles that are ultra-low emission on roads across Harrogate District

5.6 A five-year action plan is outlined in section 2.4 of the strategy document. In summary, the proposed actions are:

1. Establish a network of publically available electric vehicle charge points across Harrogate District. 2. Implement electric vehicle technology within HBC for the fleet and employees. 3. Bid into relevant third party funding opportunities to secure delivery of electric vehicle charging infrastructure. 4. Assess opportunities to encourage the uptake of electric powered public transport services. 5. Condition private developers and landowners to provide EV charging on future development sites. 6. Work with NYCC as Highway Authority on the provision of additional locations for public charge points. 7. Investigate opportunities with partners within the wider public sector estate to provide public and private charge points, for example NHS sites and council housing. 8. Examine opportunities to incentivise and promote the use of e bikes within the district. 9. Encourage third parties, particularly large supermarkets and large employers, to install charging points on their estate for use of staff and the public. 10. Raise awareness of the EV market so people can understand the options for and benefits of EV ownership such as reduced environmental impacts and improved air quality.

5.7 Electric vehicle charging infrastructure:

 Charge points would be implemented at a number of HBC owned Page 25 3

locations such as public car parks, business parks and potentially other sites in Harrogate, Ripon, Knaresborough and other settlements as determined.  Fast charge points (7 KW single phase, 3-4 hour charge time) are considered to be the most appropriate charging level at public car parks or major destinations where visitor spend should be encouraged.  Slow charge points (3.5 KW single phase, 7-8 hour charge time) are considered to be the best option in business parks and in residential areas for all day or night charging.  Rapid charge points (43 KW, 30 minute charge time) have a significant electricity supply requirement therefore installation has a higher cost. In many cases this could necessitate new substations. These chargers are therefore recommended to be installed only in appropriate locations, such as close to the A1(M) in order to complement the three rapid chargers at the civic centre rather than compete with them.

5.8 Implementation scenarios:  A number of implementation scenarios have been analysed in order to understand the potential likely impact. The recommended option is a demand-responsive scenario accompanied by an appropriate expansion plan which will enable HBC to respond quickly to changing market conditions. Within this approach will be work to understand the level of power available at favoured locations and what infrastructure would be required in order to be ready to bid into any third party funding opportunities.

5.9 Operating Model (0 – 5 years):  Work has been undertaken to evaluate the optimum operational model for the initial five year period of the strategy. Based on this appraisal the following recommendations are in the strategy:  The council will own the charging infrastructure. This provides greater flexibility in relation to future commercial opportunities. Leaving the ownership to a private operator risks leaving smaller settlements with no provision as there may be a lower level of demand in these locations to begin with. An amalgamation of operating models would likely result in inconsistency to the customer.  An experienced third party operator will be required to manage the charging infrastructure. A charge point should be viewed in the same way as a petrol pump is and the same level of reliability expected. HBC managing charge points across the district could result in a significant operational resource being required to meet the standard expected by customers.  Free charging will be provided until a defined usage threshold is met in order to accelerate the EV uptake across the district. Parking, where charged for, will not be free so as not to incentivise cars over sustainable methods of transport.

6.0 FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES

Page 26 4

6.1 Local funding: Currently there is limited funding available from council budgets for electric vehicle charging points, however, a financial outlay may be required, in time and were customer demand to require it, to roll out a district wide charging network should the Council wish to invest in this technology to meet the vision above. Local funding would be used to begin the project with the aim of unlocking external finance should use of ULEV technology escalate significantly. Any request for funding would be subject to separate reports via the normal council approval mechanisms. Developer funding will also be available to introduce charge points at new developments.

6.2 National funding: There are a number of potential funding opportunities likely to be forthcoming over the next five years, including;

 Potential funding arising from the Road to Zero Strategy and the Business Energy and Industrial Strategy Parliamentary Committee Inquiry into developing the electric vehicle market.  Air Quality Grant (may only be available for the worst performing Local Authorities nationally which would currently exclude HBC.)  Highways England funding to create a charging network adjacent to the strategic road network.  Opportunities to integrate charging point provision into external funding relating to other schemes will be explored.  European (or any equivalent) funding.

Officers will work to maximise the level of external funding secured to deliver ULEV priorities.

6.3 Supporting local business: Harrogate Borough Council is looking to take on an advocacy role for electric vehicles, through the purchase of the new EV Pool car, while carrying out this role council officers will promote the opportunities for businesses to access grants; such as the Workplace Charging Grant from the Office for Low Emission Vehicles (OLEV). To this end information will be stored in the car to be able to give out to those that are interested.

7.0 COUNCIL FLEET VEHICLES

7.1 Another key aspect of the strategy is to look at opportunities to make a transition, where feasible, from petrol and diesel HBC fleet vehicles to full electric or hybrid vans or light trucks. To understand the potential for the shift, both operationally and financially, a study has been commissioned (at no cost to HBC and with no obligation) through the Energy Saving Trust (EST). Should the recommendations of this study suggest that there are vehicles within the HBC fleet that could be operated using electric power then, as part of the final approval of the ULEV strategy Cabinet may, in time, wish to consider an increased allocation of funding to the relevant fleet budget to enable the transition to be made. The recommendations of the EST review will consider the lifetime cost of a vehicle. Findings will be reported in due course.

Page 27 5

7.2 Whilst the ULEV strategy has been in development, work has been ongoing to procure an electric pool car for use within the authority. As improvements to vehicle technology have been progressing significantly there has been a delay in the process in order to ensure that the council purchases the best value car with an optimum mileage range. Procurement has now been completed on this project and delivery of the car should be in April/May 2019 which can coincide with the launch of this strategy.

8.0 CONSULTATION

8.1 Harrogate Borough Council published the draft ULEV strategy for consultation between 29th September 2018 and 6th November 2018. The consultation was undertaken entirely online, accompanied by social media and press publicity. There were 49 responses from a range of people with varying interests in Harrogate. Overall there was a very positive reaction to the proposals in the ULEV strategy. Whilst the response rate is lower than ideal, the volume of replies is considered to be in line with what would be expected from such a consultation. North Yorkshire County Council and Zero Carbon Harrogate were consulted in greater detail and amendments to wording have been incorporated into the final strategy document to reflect their views.

8.2 The responses were overwhelmingly in support of the actions put forward by the council; with the lowest figure standing at 61.2% in support of Action 8 (Examine opportunities to incentivise and promote the use of e bikes within the district.) The highest value was 85.7% in support of Actions 1 and 9:

 Establish a network of publically available electric vehicle charge points across Harrogate District.  Encourage third parties, particularly large supermarkets and large employers, to install charging points on their estate for use of staff and the public.

8.3 Those in disagreement numbered no more than four respondents to any one action, with one respondent disagreeing with every action proposed. A detailed breakdown of the results can be found in Appendix B.

8.4 The Overview & Scrutiny Committee have also been consulted and a response to the questions / issues raised is in Appendix E

8.5 The next steps include development of a procurement plan and price specification to enable officers to effectively prepare for the installation and maintenance of EV charging infrastructure across the district. Following on from this; proposed locations for charge points will be surveyed and assessed to understand their ability to support EV charging points. If the preferred locations are unable to accommodate future demand then further work will be undertaken in order to understand what would be required and how much would it cost to install any necessary supporting infrastructure. Economy and Transport officers will liaise closely with Parking Services to make suitable arrangements to make bays available for EV charging.

8.6 The plan for procurement is for HBC to own the infrastructure and contract a supplier to manage the charge points and the service provision. This will Page 28 6

give HBC options in future, when it is more likely to become a commercial opportunity. The procurement plan is to specify the cost of each individual component necessary to install a charging point and the cost of installation of cables and resurfacing. In time, plans will also need to be developed to respond to the potential need for new sub-stations where there is not enough local capacity within the grid. These installations will start to add substantial costs on to projects. To counter this HBC will look to support installations through grant funding wherever possible. Where possible we will look to oversupply the ability to install EVCPs to reduce costs and timeframes for future installations. This effectively means ensuring that the underground provision is in place for future installations and therefore future charge points will just need plugging in. Conversations with different EVCP providers have indicated that this is an optimum approach to take.

8.7 It is planned to have an initial focus on creating charging hubs at key locations in the district. For Harrogate this is intended to be Victoria Car Park, which has indicated initial capacity to support 2-4 fast, 7kWh charging points. It is believed that grouping the charging points into key locations will make it easier to find a charging point and encourage EV drivers to come into the town centre and shop. The intention is the same for both Ripon and Knaresborough, with Ripon charge point hub to be created in the city centre and Knaresborough in an appropriate central location. Boroughbridge is intended to fill a gap in the A1(M) charging network and host 2 50kWh rapid chargers; potentially in Back Lane Car Park. Subsequently, further work will be undertaken to examine opportunities across the rest of the district, initially focussing on Masham and Pateley Bridge.

9 REQUIRED ASSESSMENTS AND IMPLICATIONS

9.1 The following have been considered: Financial Implications, Human Resources Implications, Legal Implications, ICT Implications, Strategic Property/Asset Management Considerations, Risk Assessment, Equality and Diversity (the Public Sector Equality Duty and impact upon people with protected characteristics).

9.2 PROCUREMENT The purchasing organisation ESPO offers a national framework agreement for vehicle charging infrastructure (Framework 636). This framework provides access to a wide range of vehicle charging infrastructure solutions including rapid, fast and charging points and compatible back office solutions from market leaders. Economy and Transport officers are continuing to work with colleagues in procurement to identify the optimum process to adopt in order to develop a network of publically available charge points.

9.3 FINANCIAL

Page 29 7

9.3.1 A discussion has taken place with the Finance Manager in relation to the revenue and capital cost models being proposed in the strategy. These considerations have been incorporated into this report and appendices. The direction from Cabinet previously established that a ceiling of annual revenue contribution (in terms of electricity supplied) will need to be established and further discussions around this issue will take place with finance officers.

9.3.2 Broad costs of the infrastructure and supply are understood. Economy and Transport officers will continue to work with colleagues in finance to ensure that the strategy is managed appropriately. Finance will also be consulted on the specifications for the back-office and payment systems of any installed charge points to ensure they comply with the council’s internal systems. Third party grant funding will be sought wherever possible in order to minimise any HBC capital contribution.

9.4 ICT There are no immediate ICT implications though close dialogue will be required when developing public charging infrastructure. Consideration will need to be given in due course to various issues including internet connectivity of charge points, installing the required cabling, interaction with payment systems, and incorporating other monitoring systems.

9.5 LEGAL A presentation has been given to officers from the legal team. Further discussions have taken place in developing the model for contracting charging point provision and the legal team is comfortable in the direction the strategy is proceeding in. Economy and Transport officers will continue to work with the legal team to ensure the strategy is implemented appropriately.

10.0 CONCLUSIONS

10.1 The council needs a ULEV strategy in order to respond to some key issues. In particular:  A number of Air Quality Management Areas have been declared in the district which puts HBC in a good position to apply for future grant funding opportunities and requires the general profile of vehicles travelling around the district to be greener.  The government is to ban the sale of diesel and petrol vehicles by 2040.  Local and national policies are in place aiming to reduce carbon emissions.  There is currently a lack of publicly accessible charge points available across the district with an increasing number of residents and visitors making enquiries about the availability of this infrastructure.  The council has made a public commitment to becoming a leading local authority for electric vehicle infrastructure provision.

10.2 Key elements of the ULEV strategy include:

Page 30 8

 Implementing a demand responsive charging infrastructure plan, enabling the council to cover future user needs efficiently while coping with existing uncertainty about emerging technologies.  Procuring a third party to manage the proposed charging point network.  Offering free electricity at charging points in council-run car parks in order to incentivise the uptake of EVs, until a specified usage threshold is met.

10.3 The recommendations are that Cabinet approves the final ULEV strategy.

OFFICER CONTACT: Please contact Tom Horner, Strategic Transport Planner, if you require any further information on the contents of this report. Tom can be contacted at Place-shaping & Economic Growth, PO Bo 787, Harrogate, HG1 9RW 01423 500 600 [email protected]

APPENDIX A – HBC ULEV Strategy APPENDIX B – Consultation results APPENDIX C – Financial Appraisal APPENDIX D – OSC Amendments and Response

Page 31 9

This page is intentionally left blank

Harrogate Borough Council Ultra-Low Emission Vehicle Strategy

Final Report

2019-2024

Page 33

Foreword Cllr Phil Ireland, Cabinet Member for Sustainable Transport

Welcome to the Harrogate Borough Council (HBC) strategy for ultra-low emission vehicles. We are implementing this strategy to respond to local needs and to fulfil our vision to have the most ambitious and forward-looking programme for electric vehicles of any borough council in the country. There are a number of reasons why this is extremely important to us;

One of our main concerns is to safeguard and improve air quality in the local area. There are four Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs) in Harrogate District. These AQMAs are locations where Nitrogen Oxide levels exceed the national maximum threshold. The main cause of this pollution is vehicle emissions. To tackle to air pollution in the AQMAs, we are implementing an Air Quality Action Plan that looks at the specific interventions at each AQMA but additionally there is need for a broader initiative to make the vehicles travelling on our road more environmentally friendly. Therefore, as a council with a strong sustainable transport focus, we have recognised the need to ensure ultra-low emission vehicle uptake for travel around Harrogate District can be accelerated.

We also have to be ready for changes in the UK’s vehicle market. We know that by 2040 the sale of petrol and diesel vehicles will be banned. We can already see a clear trend showing increasing numbers of ULEVs on the road here in the Harrogate District and across the country as a whole. The numbers are currently relatively modest, but the increase is rapid and the Harrogate District already has more registered ULEVs than any other district in North Yorkshire. We need to have a good network of EV charging points to serve both residents and visitors, and to encourage the move towards cleaner vehicles.

There are other complementary projects across Harrogate district; our separate Carbon Reduction Strategy commits us to do what we can to help reduce the district’s carbon dioxide emissions across the district to tackle climate change. The UK is on a path of decarbonisation and we have a part to play in this. The lifetime carbon footprint of electric vehicles is smaller than conventional fossil fuel vehicles, and we are keen to incentivise the switch to low carbon transport.

Thanks for reading and we would be delighted to receive your comments on this draft strategy to help us shape how we can best increase the proportion of ultra-low emission vehicles travelling on our roads.

Phil.

Page 34 2 | P a g e

1. Setting the Scene

1.1 Introduction

This strategy sets out how HBC will support increasing the uptake of Ultra Low Emission Vehicles (ULEVs) on roads across Harrogate District. It is important to recognise that it is not the intention to increase the number of vehicles on our roads, more so the desire to ensure that a far higher proportion of vehicles using highways across our district are powered by ultra-low emission fuels rather than petrol or diesel.

ULEV’s and the charging infrastructure they require are relatively new technologies. Whilst much of the focus is currently on electric power innovation and development is happening all the time across a range of alternative fuel sources. It will be important to be ready to quickly respond to future changes so this strategy and action plan is designed to be flexible and responsive. It will be updated in five years in order to ensure that it remains current.

The strategy contains an overview of why it is important for HBC to get involved in this agenda before outlining the strategy direction, vision, aims and objectives before providing a commentary on the proposed five year action plan. This is a draft version and will be developed further based on comments received during the consultation process.

1.2 The Jargon

As with many emerging technologies and transport initiatives there is plenty of jargon and acronyms associated with this subject. Here’s a quick guide to the main ones used in this strategy:

AQMA – Air Quality Management Area – Location where Nitrogen Oxide levels exceed the national maximum threshold. We are required to implement a plan to reduce emissions in AQMAs.

BEV – Battery Electric Vehicle – vehicles relying solely on battery power. Generally operate to a 100-300 miles range.

EVSE – Electric Vehicle Servicing Equipment – effectively a generic term for electric vehicle charging points.

FCEV – Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle – Hydrogen powered vehicles. These will not be considered in this strategy but HBC will monitor development of this technology closely.

Fast Charger – the most common type of publicly available charger. Tends to take 3-4 hours to fully charge an electric vehicle.

PHEV – Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle – Conventional petrol or diesel working alongside an electric motor with a relatively small battery (20-40 miles range) but both motors working together can achieve fuel consumption figures in excess of 130mpg. These may be more suitable in rural areas.

Rapid Charger – these chargers cost substantially more to install but can fully charge a compatible vehicle in around 30 minutes. They require a significantly higher level of power supply to be able to operate so in Page 35 3 | P a g e

addition to the extra purchase price there would be substantial electric infrastructure costs to widespread implementation.

Trickle Charger or Slow Charger – typically requires 7-8 hours for a full charge and mostly suitable for homes or workplaces.

ULEV – Ultra-low emission vehicle – defined as vehicles with emissions of CO2 below 75g/km or fully electric powered.

1.3 Why supporting electric vehicles is important to Harrogate District

The majority of vehicles across the Harrogate District run on either petrol or diesel causing pollution which can be harmful to health. Electric vehicles (EVs) are greener than internal combustion powered vehicles for many reasons:

 EVs release zero tailpipe emissions at street level improving air quality in urban areas; Emissions from electricity generation is usually displaced away from street level where they have highest human health impacts; EVs can be powered by electricity produced from sustainable energy sources. The UK’s electricity supply is rapidly decarbonising, as a result of the planned closure of our remaining coal-fired power stations and the take up of renewable energy and other low-carbon energy sources..  This means that in the UK, the lifetime carbon footprint of manufacturing, running and disposing of an electric vehicle is lower than for a conventional fossil fuel vehicle.  Ultra-Low Emission Vehicles operating on electric power are very quiet compared to petrol and diesel vehicles. This has benefits for residents living alongside busy roads and benefits for the natural environment with reduced vehicle borne noise pollution.

There are currently very few publicly accessible charge points available in the district, and we know that an increasing number of residents and visitors are asking about the availability of electric vehicle charging points.

Our limited public charging network may discourage new users or businesses to adopt ULEV technology. At the moment Harrogate sits some way behind neighbouring areas such as York and Leeds in provision so we recognise that the development of a public charging network is required. There are also implications for the visitor economy for those visiting Harrogate District

Government data1 suggests that the number of plug–in vehicles in the district is constantly increasing - reaching more 320 by the end of June 2018. Table 1 shows the uptake in EVs across North Yorkshire. Harrogate District has the highest level of EV registrations within any part of the county; even overtaking York.

1 https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/vehicles-statistics Page 36 4 | P a g e

Table 1: Plug-in cars, vans and quadricycles licensed by North Yorkshire District & York

400

350 Craven 300 Hambleton 250 Harrogate 200 Richmondshire 150 Ryedale

100 Scarborough Selby 50 York - 2011 2012 2012 2013 2013 2014 2014 2015 2015 2016 2016 2017 2017 2018 Q4 Q2 Q4 Q2 Q4 Q2 Q4 Q2 Q4 Q2 Q4 Q2 Q4 Q2

Source: Table VEH0131, Vehicle Licensing Statistics (https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/vehicles-statistics)

Battery Electric Vehicles are generally much cheaper to run than petrol or diesel vehicles, although the vehicles themselves are still relatively expensive to buy. However, battery prices are continuing to fall as capacity for the production of the raw materials increases and manufacturing techniques improve. As one of the main costs at present for electric vehicles is in the batteries, this will lead in time to greater affordability and mass market appeal.

Existing plug-in vehicle owners rely mostly on home and workplace charging but report a desire for more extensive, and faster, public charging to enable them to undertake longer journeys. Installing vehicle charging points is seen as a way of ensuring Harrogate District is ready for changes in fuelling requirements. This is particularly important for the visitor economy.

We know that the number of plug-in vehicles will increase by 2020, with new models becoming available. Provision of a public charging network is therefore seen to have two overlapping but complementary roles:  meeting the needs of existing owners; and  addressing the concerns of potential future plug-in vehicle owners.

1.4 National and Local Context

The UK government recently announced their intention to ban on all new petrol and diesel cars and vans from 2040 as part of the national Clean Air Plan.

Already, the take-up of ULEVs is accelerating. Table 3 below presents cumulative registration of plug-in cars and vans in the UK. The number of plug in Vehicles registered in the reached 144,000 in the first quarter of 2018.

Page 37 5 | P a g e

Table 2: Plug-in Cars and Vans Cumulative registration in the UK from 2012 Q1 to 2018 Q1 in thousands

UK Wide new EV registrations by Quarter 180,000

160,000

140,000

120,000

100,000 EV registrations 80,000 UK Wide 60,000

40,000

20,000

-

Source: Table VEH0150, Vehicle Licensing Statistics (https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/vehicles-statistics).

Another key driver for change is regulation to reduce carbon emissions. The UK’s Climate Change Act 2008 sets a legally binding UK-wide carbon budget. The UK has also signed and ratified the United Nations Paris Agreement which commits signatories to reduce carbon emissions sufficiently to limit global temperatures to increases of no more than 2 degrees by the end of the century. The council’s carbon reduction strategy states that we will promote and support activity within the district as a whole to help achieve district-wide emissions reductions of 57% reduction by 2030, relative to 1990 levels, to keep us in line with the UK carbon budgets.

The Committee on Climate Change (the independent body that monitors the UK’s progress towards the carbon budget) has noted that transport is now the most carbon-intensive sector in the UK. Action is needed to decarbonise and electric vehicles are a key part of this.

Road to Zero2 is the recently published government strategy in relation to ultra-low emission vehicles. It comes with an ambition to see at least half of new cars to be ultra-low emission by 2030 and a detailed 46 point action plan that provides us with an improved understanding as to where ULEV technology is seen to be heading from a government perspective.

2 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/reducing-emissions-from-road-transport-road-to-zero-strategy Page 38 6 | P a g e

Locally the in the council’s Corporate Plan, we have set out our vision to build on our heritage and be a progressive and vibrant place to live, work and visit. The plan includes priorities around supporting local communities and the local economy. Supporting cleaner vehicles is important to both of these priorities.

The emerging Harrogate District Local Plan identifies traffic congestion and air pollution as relevant issues in many of the district’s largest settlements and highlights that one of the main objectives for the council is to work towards a sustainable and improved transport system. Therefore, it is worth noting that this strategy is not looking to increase the number of private vehicles within the district but to provide the required incentives and information to existing and potential private car users across the district to switch to electric cars.

North Yorkshire County Council (NYCC) is developing a county-wide strategy for ULEV provision. Although our own strategy is in advance of the NYCC version, any future review will look to integrate, as far as practically possible, with county-wide proposals. It is important to note that whilst HBC has responsibility for many of the off street car parks across the district, leisure centres, some business premises and leads on creating air quality action plans NYCC as highway authority looks after on street infrastructure and has wider transport powers. Both authorities’ strategies therefore would ideally be closely aligned.

1.5 Our Strategy Direction

Uptake of electric vehicles is increasing rapidly and, whilst most users currently prefer to charge at home there is demand for destination based charging. In order to promote the visitor economy and also to provide options for residents, some publicly available charging infrastructure is required to build on the three rapid chargers already available at the Civic Centre.

This can be supplemented by measures to ensure new homes have charge points, looking at opportunities as to how we can lead the way in terms of electric fleet adoption and also working with third party land owners to maximise the locations available for EV users to recharge their batteries.

Whilst there is strong growth in the electric vehicle market, nationally and locally, it is important not to overprovide and waste public money. Understanding what can be implemented and at what cost will be crucial to ensure that, should the technology become mainstream, we are ready to respond.

Page 39 7 | P a g e

2. Vision, aims, objectives and core actions

2.1 Vision

Our vision is for Harrogate Borough Council to implement an ambitious and forward-looking electric vehicle programme, and be among the best councils for electric vehicles in the country.

2.2 Aims

To achieve the vision there are two aims that enable targeting of facilities for residents, businesses and visitors, these are:  Increase provision of electric vehicle charging infrastructure across Harrogate District; and  Increase the proportion of vehicles that are ultra-low emission on roads across Harrogate District.

2.3 Objectives

Four core objectives have been identified to successfully implement the two aims:

 To provide charging infrastructure for electric vehicles in order to incentivise the use of electric/hybrid vehicles over internal combustion engine powered equivalents.  To make electric vehicle infrastructure across Harrogate District sustainable for the future.  To integrate Harrogate charging infrastructure with similar local projects to ensure a coordinated approach.  To support the transition of commercial and public transport vehicles to plug-in vehicles, in particular taxis.

Page 40 8 | P a g e

2.4 Five Year Action Plan

To deliver the objectives a five year action plan has been established. As electric vehicle charging is very much an emerging technology it is important for the council to be able to adapt to changes and ensure a flexible approach to delivery of the strategy. The action plan will, therefore, be reviewed every five years to ensure adaptability to changes in technology, trends in mobility and financial considerations. The planned actions, anticipated outcomes and rationale are outlined below.

Action One: Establish a network of publically available electric vehicle charge points across Harrogate District.

Three main scenarios have been considered in order to provide a strategy to rolling out an appropriate level of public electric vehicle charging points. These were  basic provision (a small number of chargers in key locations)  demand responsive (a number of chargers in the short term in key locations followed by work to understand and develop new charging infrastructure when demand indicates it is required)  high take up (a level of provision in all key areas to meet existing and estimated future demand)

Basic provision has been ruled out because it is not sufficiently ambitious to meet the vision. High take up, which would quickly implement a large number of charge points in the short term, is a risky option with emerging technology that is predominantly used at home as it could result in significant overprovision.

A demand responsive scenario is therefore our preferred way forward. The aim of this scenario is to install a level of charging provision in the short term (2-3 years) whilst undertaking work to understand the requirements for expansion at key locations to enable quick response to demand expectations.

A longlist of potential council-owned sites has been established to provide certainty over delivery. These locations are currently under investigation to understand any issues and opportunities in order to develop a deliverable shortlist of locations for further investigation.

Our plan is to provide 61 public charging points across the district within the next five years, subject to demand and funding. This figure can increase and we will be ready to implement around 160 charge points across different locations within the district if it is required. This will be supplemented by aiming to encourage and potentially incentivise the installation of charge points on third party land such as at supermarkets.

Locations:

The proposed public charging point scheme will be implemented at locations owned by HBC including public car parks, business parks, and leisure centres.

Site Assessment criteria:

The following criteria will be assessed in order to shortlist potential locations:

General Site Conditions; Links and proximity to AQMAs; Proximity to key attractions; Closeness to existing/proposed chargers; Proximity to key routes; Impact on parking supply; Proximity to existing charging points; Statutory Utilities;

Page 41

Proximity to Food/Drink outlets; Passive provision for potential expansion of charging points; and Cost of implementation; Power Supply availability.

The proposed charging infrastructure will be spread across the main settlements in the district which can be seen in the plan below:

Figure 1: Electric Vehicle Charging infrastructure across Harrogate District

As shown, our indicative ambition is to implement a total of 30 charging points in Harrogate 10 in Knaresborough, 13 in Ripon and 2 in smaller settlements including Summerbridge, Masham, Boroughbridge and Pateley Bridge. These numbers may vary depending upon investment required to deliver the electrical infrastructure and the level of usage in early years. The figures in brackets represent potential future expansion should demand increase substantially. The map is an initial indication of the intentions of the council to install EVCPs in existing settlements where demand is anticipated to be highest. With the proposals for new developments either around the A-59/A1(M) junction or further to the East off the A-59 there will be a requirement for charging points to be included within the development. This spread of chargers will ensure that there is the facility for destination based charging across the district, with home owners able to install their own charging points at home. The plan is designed to be flexible and meet demand where it arises, so may change over time.

Types of charging points: Page 42 10 | P a g e

Fast charging points (7 KW single phase) are considered to be the most appropriate charging level at public car parks or major destinations where a three or four hour stay is realistic. Slow chargers (3.5 KW single phase) are considered to be the best option in business parks for daytime charging and rapid chargers (≥43 KW) in appropriate locations, such as close to the A1(M) or in key settlements. This will enable a mix of chargers for those needing a quick charge, those looking to stay somewhere for a minimum of a morning or afternoon and also for those parking all day at work.

Operation of proposed charging infrastructure:

Management options of charging points have been assessed and the outcome shows that in the short term (next five years) the preferred option will be a third party managing the public charging infrastructure. This has a number of advantages which are summarised below:

 Benchmarking shows that this is the option preferred by other local authorities that have already installed charging points at their car parks;  HBC could be at disadvantage compared with experienced operators as we don’t have the level of expertise or resource to be the scheme operator across a wide network of charge points;  There is a risk of negative public perception towards HBC in case of poor performance of the charging points;  Opportunity to connect electric vehicle charging point infrastructure in Harrogate District to an existing network of charging points across the country; and  A third party operating the charging points will potentially be a better use of public money and better for the user.

Should engagement on this draft strategy ratify this approach then the procurement procedure will be reported through the appropriate council meetings.

Payment incentives:

Analysis of the various different payment models has been undertaken and the preferred option is to provide free electricity in order to incentivise the uptake of electric vehicle usage across the district. This policy will be reviewed in due course as, if (or when) the technology becomes more commonplace, this concession may have to be removed. Parking fees will remain in public car parks for BEV users as it is important, for congestion management purposes; to ensure that car use is not incentivised over other sustainable modes of transport. BEV use over petrol or diesel powered cars and vans however should be prioritised.

Charging bay enforcement:

Parking bays with electric vehicle charging infrastructure included must be used only by electric vehicles that are plugged in and charging and will have a time restriction to prevent abuse. This will be determined by the type of charger associated with the recharging bay: 6/7 hours for slow chargers; 4 hours for fast chargers and 1 hour for rapid chargers.

These bays will be supported by new Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) and will be signalised by DfT approved signs.

The use of innovative technology to support the proposed charge points will be considered. For instance, there are possibilities around installing solar panels and battery storage at appropriate locations to improve the sustainability of the electricity generation. Further to this HBC is looking to develop the Appy Parking solution to specify the locations of available EVCPs and make it quick and easy to find a charging point. Page 43 11 | P a g e

Commercial properties owned and operated by the council:

The potential to provide suitable charge points at commercial properties operated by HBC will be investigated to enable our tenants to adopt ULEV technology. The first site for consideration has been Conyngham Hall in Knaresborough, which has recently been provided with a total of four fast charging points. Conyngham Hall has been initially targeted due to the proximity to the Knaresborough AQMA. A direct benefit to air quality and public health is therefore expected from this investment.

The implementation of charging points in Ripon Leisure Centre is currently being considered as part of the new pool project. Further opportunities are to be investigated at Phoenix Business Park in Ripon and at Summerbridge.

Increased numbers of charge points consummate with demand will be examined within the initial five year action plan period should further provision be required.

Action Two: To implement electric vehicle technology within Harrogate Council for the fleet and employees.

Begin use of electric pool vehicles for council staff use:

Approval has been given to procure an electric pool car to supplement the existing HBC pool car fleet. Use of the electric vehicle will be promoted over the diesel alternatives, particularly for those trips passing through AQMAs. Prior to the expiry of the existing diesel pool car leases in 2019 the opportunity to switch to fully electric or plug in hybrid options will be investigated.

Conduct a fleet review and progress to utilisation of ULEVs where possible within the HBC vehicle fleet:

HBC has commissioned the Energy Saving Trust to undertake a green fleet review. This piece of work will assess the viability and benefits of converting the HBC fleet to more environmentally friendly vehicles. The contents of the study will be evaluated and a supplementary fleet renewal action plan created upon receipt of the findings. Should there be opportunity to convert a number of HBC fleet vehicles to ULEV technology then charging infrastructure will need to be installed to facilitate overnight charging.

Implement charging provision for HBC employees at key workplaces:

In order to ensure that HBC employees are incentivised to use electric vehicles over internal combustion powered alternatives slow charging points will be established at key HBC working locations for staff. This could include priority parking particularly at locations where there is greater pressure on space availability such as at the Harrogate Civic Centre.

Action Three: Bid into relevant third party funding opportunities to secure delivery of electric vehicle charging infrastructure.

Page 44 12 | P a g e

There have been a number of recent grants from various sources. This type of grant funding from central government is expected to continue ahead of the future ban on sales of internal combustion engine powered vehicles in 2040. HBC will target appropriate funding opportunities with a view to these enabling the provision of further charging infrastructure across Harrogate District. Relevant funding opportunities will also be promoted to other organisations, such as employers, should they present a suitable opportunity to fit with this strategy.

Action Four: Assess opportunities to encourage the uptake of electric powered public transport services.

There are opportunities associated with ensuring that bus and taxi fleets are as green as possible. This can include building on the successful electric bus project grant awarded to Harrogate Bus Company and the joint HBC/Harrogate Bus Company route one low emission project to develop proposals for bus and taxi operations.

Action Five: Condition private developers and landowners to provide EV charge points on future development sites.

HBC is the planning authority for Harrogate District. This means that the planning team can place appropriate requirements on new developments. To address air quality issues and the wider public health agenda all new sites with the Harrogate District Local Plan will be required to provide a Mode 3 16amp charge point per dwelling as a standard condition. Training and support will be provided to the planning team in addition to HBC officers working with NYCC in their role as Local Highway Authority to ensure planning applications fully provide for future uptake of ULEVs.

Action Six: Work with NYCC as Highway Authority on the provision of additional locations for public charge points.

NYCC is currently working on a county wide strategy to shape NYCC policy on ULEVs. It is estimated that approximately 50% of homes do not benefit from off-street parking; therefore they would not be able to take advantage of national projects such as the Electric Vehicle Homecharge Scheme to pay for the cost of a charge. In addition, it is estimated that approximate 60% of existing EV users charge at home. HBC will work with NYCC to ensure a coordinated approach to charge points across Harrogate District.

Action Seven: Investigate opportunities with partners within the wider public sector estate to provide public and private charge points, for example NHS sites and council housing.

Opportunities to provide charge points at public sector locations for the use of staff and visitors will be investigated. We will consider facilitating this through the use of match funding. Page 45 13 | P a g e

Page 46 14 | P a g e

Action Eight: To look at opportunities to incentivise and promote the use of e bikes within the district.

An increase in usage of electric bikes can lead to a reduction in traffic congestion and air quality improvements within the district. We will assess how to encourage the uptake of electric bikes within Harrogate District.

Action Nine: To support and encourage third parties, particularly large supermarkets and large employers, to install charging points on their estate for use of staff and the public.

The existing workplace charging grant will be promoted to large employers and encourage them to install facilities potentially assisting in the funding of this through match funding.

Initial contact has been made with the largest supermarkets within the district and further discussions will take place with them in order to offer the council’s support to implement charging infrastructure across their car parks.

The government recently published its intention to create a number of new powers including a requirement for the provision of electric vehicle infrastructure at motorway service areas and large fuel retailers. Local fuel retailers could also include such provision in order to help increase local availability. HBC will write to these companies to encourage them to consider doing this.

Harrogate Borough Council is looking to take on an advocacy role for electric vehicles, including through the purchase of the new EV Pool car, while carrying out this role council officers will promote the opportunities for businesses to access grants; such as the Workplace Charging Grant from the Office for Low Emission Vehicles (OLEV). To this end information will be stored in the car to be able to give out to those that are interested.

Action Ten: Raise awareness of the EV market so people can understand the options for and benefits of EV ownership, such as reduced environmental impacts and improved air quality.

In order to maximise the usage of the charge points and the uptake of EVs by Harrogate District residents a variety of tools will be used in order to publicise the locations.

• The infrastructure will be advertised on the Harrogate Borough Council website, a dedicated webpage will be set up for members of the public to view details on charging points within the district. • Any new charge points will be added to the National Chargepoint Registry. • We will contact car dealerships with charge point locations, so they can pass this information onto potential electrical vehicle car purchasers. • We would also hope to receive some press coverage of the launch of the strategy, the consultation and implementation of the scheme. Page 47 15 | P a g e

• We would discuss with North Yorkshire County Council about the introduction of signage to direct people to charging points and have links to the Harrogate Borough Council webpage from the NYCC website. • Promote existing grants to residents and business.

We will consider potential incentives to encourage residents to ‘Go Green’ and increase the take up of electric vehicles in the district.

2.5 Targets and Monitoring

We have three main targets to monitor progress:

1. Increase the number of ULEVs registered across Harrogate District to 10,000 by 2023. This figure will be monitored annually and compared against other cities including Leeds and York. ULEV registration data is available every 3 months.

2. Charging points usage will be monitored to understand if there is enough demand and if there is need of expansion. Our target will be to reach 50% of the proposed infrastructure being used at least once a day and;

3. Contribute to a reduction in Nitrogen Oxide levels in AQMAs. The target will be in line with the emerging AQMA plan.

Page 48 16 | P a g e

3. Ultra-Low Emission Vehicle Strategy: Plan on a Page

This strategy shows how the council will support the take up of Ultra Low Emission Vehicles across Harrogate District. We are doing this to meet local needs:  To safeguard and improve local air quality in our designated Air Quality Management Areas.  To respond to the electric vehicle market and provide infrastructure that residents and visitors need.  To help achieve environmental benefits by encouraging a shift to use of cleaner vehicles.

Our vision is for Harrogate Borough Council to implement an ambitious and forward-looking electric vehicle programme, and be among the best councils for electric vehicles in the country.

To achieve the vision we have two key aims: • Increase provision of electric vehicle charging infrastructure across the district; and  Increase the proportion of vehicles that are ultra-low emission on roads across Harrogate District.

We have identified four core objectives: • To provide charging infrastructure for electric vehicles in order to incentivise the use of electric/hybrid vehicles over internal combustion engine powered equivalents. • To make electric vehicle infrastructure across Harrogate District area sustainable for the future. • To integrate Harrogate charging infrastructure with similar local projects to ensure a coordinated approach. • To support the transition of commercial and public transport vehicles to plug-in vehicles, in particular taxis.

The strategy will be implemented via the following action plan, delivered over five years:

Action 1: Establish a network of publically available electric vehicle charge points across Harrogate District. Action 2: Implement electric vehicle technology within Harrogate Council for the fleet and employees. Action 3: Bid into relevant third party funding opportunities to secure delivery of electric vehicle charging infrastructure Action 4: Assess opportunities to encourage the uptake of electric powered public transport services. Action 5: Condition private developers and landowners to provide EV charging on future development sites. Action 6: Work with NYCC as Highway Authority on the provision of additional locations for public charge points. Action 7: Investigate opportunities with partners within the wider public sector estate to provide public and private charge points, for example NHS sites and council housing. Action 8: To look at opportunities to incentivise and promote the use of e bikes within the district. Action 9: To encourage third parties, particularly large supermarkets and large employers, to install charging points on their estate for use of staff and the public. Action 10: Raise awareness of the EV market so people can understand the options for and benefits of EV ownership such as reduced environmental impacts and improved air quality.

To measure our progress, we will: 1. Monitor the number of ULEVs registered across Harrogate District. The target is 10,000 vehicles by 2023. 2. Monitor use of the installed charging infrastructure. The target is that least 50% of the chargers are used at least once a day. Page 49

3. Contribute to a reduction in Nitrogen Oxide levels in AQMAs. The target reductions will be in line with the emerging AQMA plan.

Page 50 18 | P a g e

Harrogate ULEV strategy consultation: Analysis

The draft Ultra Low Emission Vehicle strategy was published for consultation Appendix B between 29th September 2018 and Tuesday 6th November 2018. There were 49 responses from a range of people with varying interests in Harrogate. The consultation was completed by 27 male and 17 female respondents, and 3 that preferred not to say. Ages ranged from 18-89 years old. Overall there was a positive reaction to the proposals being put forward by the council. A recurring issue is the desirability of on-street charging for those that live in terraced houses with no access to a driveway or off-street charging facilities. This has also been a recurring theme in e-mails from members of the public that have been received during the time frame of the consultation. Unsurprisingly, the majority of respondents (30 – 61%) still see an internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicle as their primary means of transport. 59% (23 respondents) say that the cost of the vehicles is a barrier to them purchasing an EV.

An interesting side note is that there was a fairly even split with interest in using an electric bike. This could be useful for some future programmes to encourage people to cycle in Harrogate and the wider district.

What would encourage people to buy an EV?

Type of respondent

Factor District HBC Parish CVS Sector Visitor to Other Resident Employee Council Harrogate Public EVCP 14 0 3 0 1 1 Charging @ 5 3 0 0 0 1 work Regulation 0 3 1 0 0 1 Shared EV – 2 3 0 1 0 0 Car Club EV Trials to 6 2 2 0 0 0 meet needs Financial 15 4 2 0 1 1 No interest 9 0 2 0 0 0 in EVs Other responses included

 Being able to charge at home from a terraced house on-street.  Greater support for learner drivers – insurance.

Unfortunately these are issues largely beyond the remit of Harrogate Borough Council, though we may be able to influence North Yorkshire County Council around the on-street provision of EVCPs.

Page 51

Age Range

18-29 30-44 45-59 60-74 75-89 90+ Did not state Public EVCP 1 4 8 5 0 0 1 Charging @ 0 5 3 1 0 0 0 work Regulation 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 Shared EV1 0 4 1 1 0 0 0 EV Trials to 0 3 3 4 0 0 0 meet needs Financial 2 6 7 5 0 0 3 No interest 0 0 2 7 1 0 1 in EVs Primary 18-29 30-44 45-59 60-74 75-89 90+ Did not Mode of state Transport Bike 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 Bus 0 0 1 0 0 0 EV 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 Hybrid 0 0 2 2 0 0 ICE vehicle 1 7 11 8 1 0 2 Train 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Walking 1 1 0 2 0 0 1 Who objected to the ULEV strategy/EVs?

There were only 11 respondents that stated they had no interest in EVs. These responses came from three age categories and broke down in the following ways:

Age Range 45 – 59 60 – 74 75 – 89 Number of responses 2 7 1 Gender Male Female Prefer not to say Number of responses 6 4 1 Type of respondent District Residents Parish Councillors Prefer not to say Number of responses 9 2 1 Primary mode of Bike ICE vehicle Walking transport Number of responses 1 8 2 If not interested in owning an EV why? Happy with current vehicle 10 Wouldn’t meet my needs 7 Charging time 6 Range of vehicles 5 Not a good investment 4 Don’t feel it has a future 3 Other 9

1 Shared through a Car Club

Page 52

Of the 11 people that were not interested in an electric car only 1 was interested in an electric bike. 8 of the 11 people that were not interested in an electric car did not believe that it would become a mainstream form of transport.

Action In agreement Neither agree or disagree Do not agree Number % Number % Number % Action 1 42 85.7 5 10.2 2 10.2 Action 2 38 77.6 9 18.4 2 18.4 Action 3 37 75.5 10 20.4 2 20.4 Action 4 40 81.6 7 14.3 2 14.3 Action 5 41 83.7 6 12.2 2 12.2 Action 6 41 83.7 7 14.3 1 14.3 Action 7 41 83.7 7 14.3 1 14.3 Action 8 30 61.2 15 30.6 4 30.6 Action 9 42 85.7 5 10.2 2 10.2 Action 10 35 72.9 9 18.8 4 18.8 Scoring of Actions:

An exercise has been undertaken to give each value an overall score

Action Priority Score 1. Action 1 & 9 68 2. Action 6 & 7 67 3. Action 5 65 4. Action 4 63 5. Action 3 60 6. Action 2 59 7. Action 10 52 8. Action 8 43 However, of those that were not interested in owning an EV the following responses to the Action Points were interesting:

Action Strongly Agree Neither A or Disagree Strongly Agree D Disagree 1 3 2 4 2 0 2 1 2 7 1 0 3 2 1 7 1 0 4 2 3 5 1 0 5 1 5 4 1 0 6 2 3 5 1 0 7 2 2 6 1 0 8 2 1 5 3 0 9 2 3 4 2 0 10 0 2 7 2 0

The above information shows the views of those that said that said they had no interest in owning an electric vehicle. It demonstrated that even among those that are not looking to own or use EVs there is still a positive reaction to the proposed actions.

Page 53

List of Actions from ULEV strategy:

Action 1: Establish a network of publically available EV charge points across Harrogate District

Action 2: To implement EV technology within HBC for the fleet and employees

Action 3: Bid into relevant third party funding opportunities to secure delivery of EV charging infrastructure

Action 4: Assess opportunities to encourage the uptake of electric powered public transport

Action 5: Condition private developers and landowners to provide EV charge points on future development sites

Action 6: Work with NYCC on the provision of additional locations for public charge points

Action 7: Investigate opportunities within the wider public sector estate to provide public and private charge points, for example the NHS and council housing

Action 8: To look at opportunities to incentivise and promote the use of electric bikes within the district

Action 9: Encourage third parties, particularly large supermarkets and employers, to install charging points on their estate for the use of staff and the public.

Action 10: Raise awareness of the EV market so that people can understand the option form and benefits, of EV ownership, such as reduced environmental impacts and improved air quality,

The number in agreement with the proposed actions is still higher than those in disagreement, and no one strongly disagreed with the actions put forward; though in general around half of respondents that are not interested in owning an EV were non-committal towards most of the actions put forwards. Overall, even though these people were not interested in owning an EV, they did not disagree with the proposed actions.

Of the 48 responses 41 either agreed or strongly agreed to the proposed actions being carried out.

How does HBC progress on the basis of the results?

Each of the proposed actions was agreed or strongly agreed with by respondents. The strongest disagreement was directed towards opportunities to promote the use of electric bikes in the district (8%) and raising awareness of the EV market to help people understand the implications of EV ownership (8%) 8% = 4 respondents.

Based on the largely positive responses it would appear that there is broad agreement with the direction of the ULEV strategy from the respondents to the consultation. There are some proposed locations for EVCPs around the district that may be worth exploring. There are a number of responses regarding on-street charging which should be shared with North Yorkshire County Council to inform the development of their strategy and policy.

Page 54

A regular response that is still worth highlighting is that people are still put off by the price of EVs. While there is nothing that HBC is able to do to address the cost of purchasing an EV, it is anticipated that the costs will start to fall from 2019 onwards as an increased number of manufacturers bring out new EV models and the choice is expanded. The increased competition and supply should start to bring prices down. Innovation will hopefully follow and see a further increase in vehicle range and charging times. The next few years could start to see a steady increase in the sales of electric vehicles as a result of this.

Suggested potential locations:

 Ripon Market Square  Ripon Sainsbury’s  Odeon car park  Leeds Road M&S  Station car parks  Fewston Reservoir  Oxford Street  Multi-storey car parks  Cardale Park  P&R scheme  Skipton Rd Aldi area  Pateley Bridge Car park  Conyngham Hall  Knaresborough centre  Cold Bath Road  A1 interchange  Train Station CPs  Princes Square (Flaxby) Some of the suggestions were all encompassing for all HBC car parks, all train stations and for on- street parking requests using lamp post chargers, as is being rolled out in London. These are all things that we can put to NYCC to encourage them to consider the roll out of chargers in Harrogate District and encourage the uptake of EVs.

Response to comments:

Affordability:

There were a number of comments around the affordability of EVs. This is an issue that is beyond the capabilities of the Council to really address. Ultimately the market will see more electric vehicles added to the range and as production increases and supply is able to meet demand the prices will drop to an affordable level. A number of vehicle manufacturers are developing EVs for the near future, with this in mind the prices of EVs should start to reduce and demand will hopefully increase as diesel has already started to become less desirable. Fuel prices are also likely to continue to rise in future. This could make Internal Combustion Engine vehicles less appealing and affordable over the next ten years.

“The lower income families are being left out of this, for people that can at present basically afford to purchase a £2000 second hand car every 5 years how are we supposed to afford EV Technology? The strategy worries me, it has a potential to go back to the 1900’s where only the rich can afford a vehicle. Frightens me. 2nd hand EVs at an affordable price won’t be available for years and if it does the spares/replacement batteries will be mind blowingly expensive.”

The above comment does reflect an issue that surrounds EVs. The way in which their owners are subsidised for being early adopters is a benefit that those that are currently unable to afford an EV will likely not be able to receive when EVs become an option; in effect giving subsidy to those that need it least. If Harrogate Council it to look to implement the vision it has put forward maybe a way of supporting lower income families could be investigated to see if there is a way to enable all to access the new technology and expedite the uptake of EVs; however this is an ambitious prospect and would need very careful examination.

Page 55

“Yes. Affordable electric vehicles for the general public are some years away yet. However, affordable electric bikes are available now. (We’ve got two). The problem here is the road systems in Harrogate, which makes cycling in the town dangerous and will put many people of any sort of bike. The Council must invest in proper cycle routes to get people out of their cars. That makes much more sense than investing in expensive electric vehicle infrastructure.”

At present cycling infrastructure proposals are being worked up and their feasibility is being examined. Electric bikes are cheaper than cars and are suitable for local travel and can be a viable alternative for local commuting. There are complications with electric bikes but they are not insurmountable. It will be important to have segregated cycle ways to keep pedestrians and cyclists from colliding; as electric bikes can travel at significant speed and are heavier than a standard bike.

“Waste of money if more was done regarding dirty school buses and the parents that drive the children to school would help more as when schools are on holiday there is no build up of traffic”

Location:

The consultation requested that people give up to five potential locations for the installation of EVCPs.

Most of the suggestions are in line with the proposals in the strategy, however there are some that are unlikely to be possible or beyond the control of Harrogate Borough Council, for example:

“Oxford Street reopen the pedestrianised but for electric charging”

“On-street charging points in residential areas where off-street parking is not available”

“Consider fitting charging sockets to lamp post as used in London”

“Bond End”

“Via lampposts – ie parking near Esplanade for example”

“Princess Square parking area – Harrogate”

“A1 interchange near Flaxby”

“If I had an EV I would anticipate mainly charging it at home but would look for locations on longer journeys. Terraced housing/streets without off street parking need to be addresses/provided for.”

“Residents need electric charging points where it is primarily on street parking – such as the terraced housing on Valley Drive, Harlow Moor Drive ASAP! We have residents trying to charge from their houses onto the street and it is causing health and safety risks. We don’t have driveways and yet we want EVs. Help us to reduce the emissions and support electric vehicles in areas with no driveways as a priority.”

“There seems a distinct gap South of Harrogate on the map in the proposals”

“Electric charge points should be ‘new places’ ie not removing existing any vehicle charging.”

Page 56

Harrogate Borough Council will need to put some of these suggestions to North Yorkshire County Council if they are to be able to be enacted. Some of these actions would likely require further consultation with local residents and an ability to assess the demand. The costs involved, for North Yorkshire County Council, could be quite high. It would be logical to ensure that HBC and NYCC systems are compatible with each other to ensure the best service possible for the residents of Harrogate and to ensure that HBC infrastructure is not side-lined in favour on-street provisions.

Technology:

Currently most electric vehicles have a limited range in comparison to their internal combustion engine counterparts. Battery technology is developing and ranges are steadily increasing to around the same as an average family car. However, research has shown that an EV is more than capable of handling the average daily use of a family car. When it comes to the longer trips it may be more of a challenge to complete longer journeys in an EV. This issue is being addressed through the increase in the number of charging points along the main arterial routes for the country. This still necessitates planning of a route and stops to ensure that vehicles can be charged with a rapid charger so that the time spent stationary is kept to an acceptable break. Given this logic HBC should look to install the right kinds of chargers in locations that are desirable to visitors; for example tourist traps like Fountains Abbey or facilities owned by Harrogate Borough Council; this way we can encourage the owners of electric vehicles to stay in locations for longer while their vehicles are charging.

One of the comments stated:

“I cannot envisage getting in a car to go to an appointment maybe 2 hours drive away and having to allocate far more time to charge on the way. Until batteries are far more efficient, this is a non- starter.”

This is likely to be an issue for some people as the cheaper vehicles have typical ranges of between 100-150 miles. However, vehicles are starting to come onto the market with a 2-300 mile range. These are from companies such as Hyundai and were typically ranges only achieved by Teslas with a price point over £100,000. This demonstrates how the technology is progressing. With that kind of range and the ability to charge at home with very low fuel, and reduced maintenance costs the life time cost of an EV significantly lower than that of an internal combustion engine. The difficulty that is faced is the supply of vehicles is still relatively low and the ability to charge a large number of vehicles is patchy at best.

This is why the demand responsive model that is being proposed is likely to be the most suitable. As the charging infrastructure is introduced it is likely that it will encourage the uptake of more EVs. There will still be the issue of on-street charging, which is likely to be a factor in encouraging those without off-street access to charge. As a result charging hubs in residential areas, off-street, may be a good introduction for residents. Utilisation will initially be low but with further investigation it may be possible to generate the required responses to find out where the demand for charging is and examine the feasibility of catering to meet the demand. There are models that have already been implemented in Europe that cater for exactly this and have been transformative in the way in which people think about transport; for example in Bremen. These have been linked with car sharing and

Page 57

public transport to form ‘mobility hubs’ and may be an approach that Harrogate Borough Council can investigate as a potential solution for terraced streets, in cooperation with North Yorkshire County Council.

Page 58 By virtue of paragraph(s) 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

Document is Restricted

Page 59 This page is intentionally left blank Appendix D

Appendix D: Observation and Scrutiny Commission Amendments

The HBC Ultra-Low Emission Vehicle strategy was put before the Overview and Scrutiny Commission on 4th March 2019. The strategy was well received and supported, however some suggestions were made for amendments and some questions were asked. The purpose of this document is to acknowledge and respond to these points.

No proposed sites to the East of the A1(M), is the plan flexible? No charging points proposed for south of the A-59

The EVCP location map is an initial indication of the intentions of the council to install EVCPs in existing settlements where demand is anticipated to be highest. With the proposals for a new settlement in the Green Hammerton / Cattel area there will be a requirement for charging points to be included within the development. This spread of chargers will ensure that there is the facility for destination based charging across the district, with home owners able to install their own charging points at home. The plan is designed to be flexible and meet demand where it arises, so may change over time.

The idea behind the proposed strategy is that HBC installs EVCPs in destinations that are likely to attract a critical mass of vehicles. The evidence suggests that most people will charge their cars at home overnight, while the car is not likely to be used and energy supplies are, currently, in a lower demand. The consequences of this is that most EVs can be fully charged before any journey is undertaken, reducing the need to recharge while out. However, there may be instances where people need to charge while they are out. This is why the strategy suggests working with employers, supermarkets and other areas of the public estate to ensure that there is a charging facility available for those times when people have had to make longer trips.

This is not to rule out putting EVCPs in some of the more remote areas. HBC intends to work with Town and Parish Councils to support the installation of EVCPs where practical and possible. We’re also investigating alternative means of powering charging points – such as Hydrogen fuel cells – to bypass the need for a major grid connection and major road works.

Working with North Yorkshire County Council (NYCC) on installing charging points in lighting columns:

It is the intention of HBC to work with NYCC to ensure that there is the ability to provide on- street charging for residents in areas without off-street parking. People in terraced housing are currently likely to struggle to be able to access the OLEV home charging grant as they have no off-street parking facility. They should not be discouraged from being able to purchase an EV because of this. There are a range of options with regards to on-street charging and there is a requirement that all government funded on-street charging infrastructure, from July 2019, must be smart. This means charge points must be able to be remotely accessed and capable of receiving, interpreting and reacting to a signal. This will enable the cars and chargers to be able to manage the demand on the grid. The practicalities of this will need investigating to best understand how to implement it and where it should be installed. There are likely to be implications around compatibility and ensuring that an adequate power supply is available, as well as the correct kind of cabling under the highway.

Page 75 Appendix D

However, HBC believe that we have a strong case to be a pilot area for the technology in North Yorkshire due to the exponential increase in the uptake of new EVs in the district outstripping all other districts in the county. Action Point 6 would appear to cover all of this when it comes to working with NYCC.

Supporting businesses to access grants:

Harrogate Borough Council is looking to take on an advocacy role for electric vehicles, through the purchase of the new EV Pool car, while carrying out this role council officers will promote the opportunities for businesses to access grants; such as the Workplace Charging Grant from the Office for Low Emission Vehicles (OLEV). To this end information will be stored in the car to be able to give out to those that are interested.

It may be necessary to plot businesses that are interested to see if there are specific areas that have a demand, this may help to support with costs if there are new substations and alternations that need to be made. It may also be worth working with the Harrogate BID to see if there is more interest and support for businesses to take advantage of Electric Vehicle charging.

To support the transition of commercial and public transport vehicles to plug-in vehicles, in particular taxis:

Plans are being worked up to assist in the transition of taxis to become all ULEVs. However, there is still the potential issue of the range of the vehicles if someone from Masham wants to get a taxi to Harrogate and it has already been driving around all day. The current fleet of EVs is going to struggle to do this. The new cars that are coming to the market are starting to boast greater ranges; however terrain and weather can play a part in impacting the range of an EV; just as they can with and internal combustion engine. Unfortunately the impact on an EVs battery can be the major limiting factor when compared to an internal combustion engine. The technology to counter this is starting to come on stream and does make a substantial impact.

The second limiting factor is that the charging infrastructure does not exist to support the transition for taxis. Further ideas are being developed around this, but HBC are still restricted to plans being put in place on HBC land. There is the need for ultra-expensive and power hungry rapid chargers to ensure that EV Taxis are able to monetise as much of their time as possible. The transport team is working on developing ideas to support this, but the funding required for the charging infrastructure is going to be the biggest challenge. As a result it cannot be rushed as the solution needs to be workable and not become defunct in two years’ time.

Summerbridge Car park development

Unfortunately the installation of EVCPs is not as simple as just putting them in place. Before installation a range of actions need to be carried out to ensure that they can operate. The site and area will need to be surveyed to ensure the grid capacity exists. We also need the ULEV strategy in place as we need to have a procurement procedure and structure in place to enable the district to have a seamless transition from one settlement to another. HBC need to have a payments facility in place and agreement on how much electricity will be available free of charge before we can start enabling the use of the charging points. Summerbridge is an area

Page 76 Appendix D that has been identified as being desirable to install EVCPs in and will get them once the correct processes can be followed.

A separate development that we are looking at for more remote areas is the potential to use hydrogen fuel cells to power EVCPs. These will not require the same kind of grid connection as standard charging points and can be located without the same level of construction work. There are some potential draw backs with this, but the technology exists to generate hydrogen on site through renewable energy, making the recharging of the cars completely emission free.

How will the ULEV strategy work for HGVs:

At this time HBC is unable to support charging for HGVs. The power demands are huge and the range of electric HGVs is too short to make them viable at this time. The potential to replace bin lorries with EVs was examined and it was established that this was not possible. Not only was the cost more than double it was established that they would not be able to carry out their rounds due to range. As a result the vehicles would spend more time charging than they would carrying out their role, as a result HBC would need even more lorries to carry out the rounds as they currently stand; they also would not be able to reach more remote communities.

The future potential for hydrogen looks a more likely outcome for HGVs and longer distance travel, this will enable them to be powered by electric motors and the only emissions will be pure water. These will be filled up in the same manner as a current HGV, with the exception that the filling hose and tank will have a pressurised seal between them.

Link to Appy Parking:

Appy Parking is already able to highlight EVCPs and their availability. They do not yet show on the Harrogate map as there are no EVCPs in the Appy Parking zone. When they are installed within the town centre parking zone the plan is to equip them with Appy Parking sensors so it is easy to see their availability. We are also planning to explore whether it would be possible to book a space at a charging point through the App. This would then ensure that an EV driver could guarantee a space and ability to charge.

Page 77 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 7

Agenda Item No. 7

REPORT TO: Cabinet

DATE: 27 March 2019

SERVICE AREA: Overview and Scrutiny

REPORTING OFFICER: Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Commission - Councillor Philip Broadbank

SUBJECT: The Review of the operation of the Freedom of Information (FOI) Scheme including the Internal Review process - Final report from the Overview and Scrutiny Commission

WARD/S AFFECTED: ALL DISTRICT

FORWARD PLAN REF: N/A

1.0 PURPOSE OF REPORT

1.1 This report details the report from the Overview and Scrutiny Commission regarding the operation of the Freedom of Information (FOI) Scheme including the Internal Review process.

2.0 RECOMMENDATION/S

2.1 It is recommended that Cabinet considers the report and agrees the recommendations in Paragraph 3.3.

3.0 THE REPORT

3.1 In June 2017 a member of the public requested that the Overview and Scrutiny Commission review the council’s FOI scheme, including the internal review process. The item of work was considered medium priority and the review commenced in early 2018 and overlapped two municipal years.

3.2 The final report from the Overview and Scrutiny Commission is attached for consideration by Cabinet. The review considered the following in detail:

a) Freedom of Information Act and Guidance

I. The Freedom of Information Act

Page 79 1

II. Principles of the Freedom of Information Act

III. Publication Scheme

IV. Requests Received and Timescales for Response

V. Exemptions

VI. Internal Reviews

VII. The Information Commissioner’s Office and Referrals

VIII. Cabinet Office Code of Practice

b) Freedom of Information Process

I. How FOI requests are handled

 Who is responsible for responding?  What is the policy?  How are requests received?  Publication Scheme and website

II. Analysis of the number of requests received

 Total requests received  Requests by Department  Requests by Service  Numbers refused/Partial Response  Reasons for refusal  Numbers unanswered

III. Timescales for response

 What are the target/set timescales?  How does the council perform?

IV. General

 What are the reasons for making FOI requests?  Are there any mechanisms to request information other than FOI requests?  Ensuring consistency across the council

V. How are internal reviews undertaken?

 What is the policy/process?  Who undertakes internal reviews?  Could there be potential conflicts of interest? Page2 80

 Where are they reported?

VI. ICO Referrals

 Harrogate Borough Council  CIPFA Nearest Neighbours

3.3 The recommendations from the review are summarised below:

Recommendation (1):

Information about the ICO guidance and FOI legislation should be available on the council’s website and a simple plain English FOI policy should be developed

Recommendation (2):

All FOI requests and responses should be published on the council website this could include a search facility and frequently asked questions

Recommendation (3):

Central FOI Log

a) Ensure that the Central FOI log records where requests are received (e.g. via letter/email/web-form)

Recommendation (4):

Code of Practice

a) The council should review the updated code of practice and implement any required changes to meet the social media requirements as detailed in the section Rights of Access paragraph 1.16

Recommendation (5):

Website improvements:

The FOI/Publication Scheme part of the website should be regularly reviewed and updated in response to feedback from the public. This would ensure that appropriate information is published in accordance with the model publication scheme and kept up to date

Recommendation (6):

Code of Practice

b) The council should publish and report compliance statistics in accordance with paragraph 8.5 of the Code of Practice

Page3 81

Recommendation (7):

The number of FOI requests per department/service and exemptions used should be included in the corporate quarterly performance reports

Recommendation (8):

FOI log

b) Ensure that the use of exemptions and partial refusals is completed in the FOI log at the time response is sent

c) The use of exemptions should be discussed with the Legal Assistant (Debt and Information Law)

Recommendation (9):

The council should always inform requesters if responses are to be delayed in excess of the 20 working day target

Recommendation (10):

Report the council’s performance in responding to FOI requests within 20 working days as part of the corporate quarterly performance reporting process

Recommendation (11):

The council has a corporate performance indicator to respond to all FOI requests within 20 working days with a target of 90%. All requests that fail to meet the 20 working day deadline should be reported quarterly with reasons provided

Recommendation (12):

FOI Log

d) The FOI log records the source of FOI requests where possible (e.g. journalists, members of the public etc.) and it is required to be completed

e) Officers are required to complete the FOI log information for time taken to respond to a FOI request

f) All Councillors should be provided with access to the FOI log to review FOI requests made and responses provided

Recommendation (13):

Consistency

Page4 82

a) All responses to FOI requests should be provided by the LADIL in consultation with the services involved

b) A small number of FOI contacts (with appropriate training) to be provided in all services, to be responsible for providing information to the LADIL within the response timescales

c) The LADIL should have responsibility for completing the FOI log

Recommendation (14):

A formal written internal review process should be developed and made publically available

Recommendation (15):

The number of decision notices received from the ICO should be included as part of the quarterly performance report

4.0 REQUIRED ASSESSMENTS AND IMPLICATIONS

4.1 The following were considered: Financial Implications; Human Resources Implications; Legal Implications; ICT Implications; Strategic Property/Asset Management Considerations; Risk Assessment; Equality and Diversity (the Public Sector Equality Duty and impact upon people with protected characteristics). If applicable, the outcomes of any consultations, assessments, considerations and implications considered necessary during preparation of this report are detailed below.

5.0 CONCLUSIONS

5.1 The final report from the Overview and Scrutiny Commission is attached for consideration by Cabinet. It is recommended that Cabinet considers the report and agrees the recommendations.

Background Papers – None

OFFICER CONTACT: Please contact (Mark Codman, Scrutiny, Governance and Risk Manager), if you require any further information on the contents of this report. The officer can be contacted at (Legal and Governance, PO Bo 787, Harrogate, HG1 9RW) 01423-(58595) or by e-mail – ([email protected])

Page5 83

This page is intentionally left blank

Overview and Scrutiny Commission

FINAL

“Review of the operation of the Freedom of Information (FOI) Scheme including the Internal Review process”

March 2019

1.0 Table of Contents Page No. 1.0 Contents 2

Page 85 1

2.0 Summary of Recommendations 4

3.0 Overview and Scrutiny Commission Membership 7

4.0 Scope 8

5.0 Methodology 9

6.0 The Review 12

a) Introduction 12

b) Freedom of Information Act and Guidance 12

I. The Freedom of Information Act 12

II. Principles of the Freedom of Information Act 12

III. Publication Scheme 12

IV. Requests Received and Timescales for Response 13

V. Exemptions 13

VI. Internal Reviews 13

VII. The Information Commissioner’s Office and 14 Referrals

VIII. Cabinet Office Code of Practice 15

c) Freedom of Information Process

I. How FOI requests are handled 16  Who is responsible for responding?  What is the policy?  How are requests received?  Publication Scheme and website

II. Analysis of the number of requests received 20  Total requests received  Requests by Department  Requests by Service  Numbers refused/Partial Response  Reasons for refusal  Numbers unanswered

III. Timescales for response 26  What are the target/set timescales?  How does the council perform?

IV. General 30  What are the reasons for making FOI requests?  Are there any mechanisms to request information other than FOI requests? Page 86 2 | P a g e

 Ensuring consistency across the council

V. How are internal reviews undertaken? 33  What is the policy/process?  Who undertakes internal reviews?  Could there be potential conflicts of interest?  Where are they reported?

VI. ICO Referrals 38  Harrogate Borough Council  CIPFA Nearest Neighbours

7.0 Conclusions 40

8.0 Bibliography 41

Page 87 3 | P a g e

2.0 Summary of Recommendations

Recommendation (1):

Information about the ICO guidance and FOI legislation should be available on the council’s website and a simple plain English FOI policy should be developed

Recommendation (2):

All FOI requests and responses should be published on the council website this could include a search facility and frequently asked questions

Recommendation (3):

Central FOI Log

a) Ensure that the Central FOI log records where requests are received (e.g. via letter/email/web-form)

Recommendation (4):

Code of Practice

a) The council should review the updated code of practice and implement any required changes to meet the social media requirements as detailed in the section Rights of Access paragraph 1.16

Recommendation (5):

Website improvements:

The FOI/Publication Scheme part of the website should be regularly reviewed and updated in response to feedback from the public. This would ensure that appropriate information is published in accordance with the model publication scheme and kept up to date

Recommendation (6):

Code of Practice

b) The council should publish and report compliance statistics in accordance with paragraph 8.5 of the Code of Practice

Recommendation (7):

The number of FOI requests per department/service and exemptions used should be included in the corporate quarterly performance reports

Recommendation (8): Page 88 4 | P a g e

FOI log

Recommendation (9):

The council should always inform requesters if responses are to be delayed in

excess of the 20 working day target

Recommendation (10):

Report the council’s performance in responding to FOI requests within 20 working days as part of the corporate quarterly performance reporting process

Recommendation (11):

The council has a corporate performance indicator to respond to all FOI requests

within 20 working days with a target of 90%. All requests that fail to meet the 20 working day deadline should be reported quarterly with reasons provided

Recommendation (12):

FOI Log

d) The FOI log records the source of FOI requests where possible (e.g. journalists,

members of the public etc.) and it is required to be completed

e) Officers are required to complete the FOI log information for time taken to respond to a FOI request

f) All Councillors should be provided with access to the FOI log to review FOI requests made and responses provided

Recommendation (13):

Consistency

Page 89 a) All responses to FOI requests should be provided by the LADIL in consultation5 | P a g e with the services involved

b) A small number of FOI contacts (with appropriate training) to be provided in all

Recommendation (14):

A formal written internal review process should be developed and made publically available

Recommendation (15):

The number of decision notices received from the ICO should be included as part of the quarterly performance report

3.0 Overview and Scrutiny Commission Membership

3.1 Membership for the municipal year 2017/18: Page 90 6 | P a g e

 Councillor David Goode (Chair)  Councillor Stuart Martin  Councillor Bernard Bateman  Councillor Pauline McHardy  Councillor Philip Broadbank  Councillor Tim Myatt  Councillor Nick Brown  Councillor Bob O'Neill  Councillor Ian Galloway  Councillor Andrew Paraskos  Councillor Nathan Hull  Councillor Ashley Teague  Councillor John Mann  Councillor Cliff Trotter  Councillor Pat Marsh

3.2 Membership for the municipal year 2018/19:

 Councillor Philip Broadbank (Chair)  Councillor Pat Marsh  Councillor Margaret Atkinson  Councillor Samantha Mearns/Victoria  Councillor Bernard Bateman Oldham  Councillor Nick Brown  Councillor Nigel Middlemass  Councillor Sue Lumby  Councillor Ann Myatt  Councillor John Mann  Councillor Norman Waller  Councillor Tom Watson

Page 91 7 | P a g e

4.0 Scope

4.1 The draft scope was agreed by Members at a meeting of the Commission on 21 November 2017. The scope was also agreed by the member of the public who initiated the review. The agreed scoping document is included at Appendix A. The title for the review was the “Review of the operation of the Freedom of Information (FOI) Scheme including the Internal Review process”.

4.2 The main aims/objectives were:

a) How FOI requests are handled

b) Analysis of the numbers of requests received:

c) Timescales for response

d) General

 What are the reasons for making FOI requests?  Are there any mechanisms to request information other than FOI requests?  Ensuring consistency across the Council

e) How are internal reviews undertaken?

4.3 The report details the work undertaken to address the aims/objectives of the review.

Page 92 8 | P a g e

5.0 Methodology

5.1 The review was undertaken by the full Commission over a number of meetings commencing in early 2018. Appropriate Officers and external witnesses were invited to attend and provide evidence.

a) Background Research

5.2 A number of background papers/publications/websites were considered as part of the review including:

 Section 45 Code of Practice – Request Handling (attached at Appendix D)  The Freedom of Information Act (attached at Appendix E (available on request)  How the Information Commissioner’s Office Selects Authorities for Monitoring (attached at Appendix F)  Updated Code of Practice (attached at Appendix N)  The Guide to Freedom of Information – Information Commissioner’s Office  Information Commissioner’s Office – Model Publication Scheme  Information Commissioner’s website  Other local authority websites

b) Freedom of Information Log

5.3 When requests are received, they are acknowledged and logged on a corporate log stored within Legal and Governance. The Commission was provided with a copy of the FOI log which allowed us to analyse the request received. This was used for the purposes of:

 Statistical information (numbers of requests received, numbers unanswered etc.)  Selecting requests for a customer survey from a redacted version of the log  Understanding the process in responding to FOI’s  Understanding key themes and trends

The FOI log includes the following columns to be completed:

 Name of requester  Details of the request  Date received  Department/service  Officer dealing with  Deadline for response  Date of response  Exemption applied  Time spent completing request

c) Benchmarked CIPFA Nearest Neighbours

5.4 Benchmarking information was obtained from 15 similar authorities; this enabled the Commission to compare the council’s processes, procedures and performance to other similar local authorities.

Page 93 9 | P a g e

5.5 The benchmarked authorities were derived from the Chartered Institute for Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA) Nearest Neighbours, which compares the council against a number of key indicators such as non- metropolitan districts, population, % of unemployment, retail premises, and % properties band A-D, etc.

5.6 As a result, requests were made to the council’s CIPFA Nearest Neighbours for:

 Number of requests received from 2015/16 to 2017/18  % compliance within 20 working days (as per FOIA)  % compliance within 10 working days (for information only)  Number of internal reviews and the outcomes of these  A copy of their internal review process  Information for which officers conduct internal reviews  Section within the council in which the responsibility for FOI’s sit  Whether there is a dedicated officer to deal with/coordinate FOI  The number of ICO referrals and the outcomes of these

The responses to these questions are detailed in this report and attached in full at Appendix H.

5.7 All of the council’s CIPFA Nearest Neighbour provided a response of the requests made for information; this took in total a period of four months. However, not all respondents were able to provide full answers to all questions due to information not being stored, being lost or not recorded. Comparative data has been collated in this report where possible.

d) Craven District Council

5.8 Detailed comparative information was also considered from Craven District Council (a smaller local authority within North Yorkshire) this was provided by the Information Governance Manager who attended a meeting of the Commission and also provided additional information such as:

 FOI statistics  ICO relevant tribunal decisions  Process and policies at Craven District Council

e) Public Consultation

5.9 A significant consultation exercise was undertaken with members of the public based on the proportion of FOI received per department, the number of responses after 20 working day deadline and the proportion of exemptions used. 100 members of the public were randomly selected (based upon the above criteria) for the period 1 January 2018 – 31 March 2018. Responses were selected anonymously and without reference

to the request made or to the requestor from a redacted version of the FOI log. A snap

survey was developed with a number of questions regarding the customers experience, the survey is attached at Appendix K and the summary results are attached at Appendix L.

5.10 Three reminder emails were sent to requestors to encourage response, however only 16 responses were received. It should be noted that one response was sent in error regarding the wrong authority and was therefore discounted from the results.

Page 94 10 | P a g e

5.11 On behalf of the Commission, FOI requests were also submitted anonymously to the council as part of a “mystery shopper” exercise in order to ascertain customer experience of submitting FOI’s. Four FOI requests were submitted in this way to the council. Two were submitted via the dedicated FOI email address, one was via the council’s webform on the website and one was via Twitter. The FOI’s requests submitted as part of the mystery shopper exercise are attached at Appendix I.

f) Meeting Overview

5.12 The following table provides an overview of the meetings together with information considered (attached to the report as appendices).

Meeting Date Subject Attendees 21 November 2017 Scope of review  Members of the 2017/18 Commission Information APPENDIX A – Scope Document Considered/Minutes APPENDIX B – Minutes of the Commission of the meeting 21 November 2017 19 February 2018 Review of FOI  Members of the 2017/18 Scheme Commission  Rich Kemp, Legal Assistant  Bernice Elgot, Chief Solicitor Information APPENDIX C – Presentation from Legal Assistant/Chief Considered/Minutes Solicitor APPENDIX D – Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) Section 45 Code of Practice APPENDIX E (available on request) – Freedom of Information Legislation APPENDIX F – “How the ICO Selects Authorities for Monitoring” APPENDIX G – Minutes of the Commission of the meeting of 19 February 2018 2 July 2018 Review of FOI Scheme  Members of the 2018/19 Commission  Dave Clothier, Information Systems Manager  David Roper-Newman, Information Governance Manager (Craven District Council) Information APPENDIX H – Performance Benchmarking in Comparison Considered/Minutes to CIPFA Nearest Neighbours APPENDIX I – “Mystery Shopper” Freedom of Information Requests Submitted APPENDIX J – Minutes of the meeting of 2 July 2018 26 November 2018 Draft Report  Members of the 2018/19 Commission Information APPENDIX K – Customer Survey Considered/Minutes APPENDIX L – Customer Survey Summary Results

Page 95 11 | P a g e

6.0 The Review

a) Introduction

6.1 On 12 June 2017 a member of the public requested that the Commission review the council’s FOI scheme, including the internal review process. The item of work was considered medium priority and the review commenced in early 2018. It was recognised this would be an in depth review and would overlap two municipal years. The Overview and Scrutiny Commission 2018/19 agreed to continue the work.

b) The Freedom of Information Act & Guidance

I. The Freedom of Information Act

6.2 The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) 2000 provides public access to information held by public authorities.1 It does this in two ways:

 Public authorities are obliged to publish certain information about their activities; and  Members of the public are entitled to request information from public authorities.2

6.3 The Act covers any recorded information that is held by a public authority in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and by UK-wide public authorities based in Scotland. The Act covers all recorded information held by a public authority. The updated Code of Practice provides further guidance about how to define ‘information’ and whether information is ‘held’ for the purposes of the Act.

6.4 This means that FOI is not limited to official documents it also covers drafts, emails and notes. However, it means that the FOIA does not apply to requests if it would mean the creation of new information or giving an opinion or judgment that is not already recorded. FOI requests can be made by anyone, individuals or by organisations.

II. Principles of the Freedom of Information Act

6.5 The Information Commissioner’s Office Guidance highlights a number of principles for FOI. It is stated that the main principle of FOI legislation is that “people have a right to know about the activities of public authorities, unless there is a good reason for them not to. This is sometimes described as a presumption or assumption in favour of disclosure. The Act is also sometimes described as purpose and applicant blind.”3

III. Publication Scheme

6.6 The FOIA requires every public authority to have a publication scheme and to publish information covered by it.4 Public authorities have an obligation to publish certain information proactively under the Publication Scheme and to respond to requests for information. The scheme must set the council’s commitment to make certain classes of information routinely available such as policies and procedures, minutes of meetings and financial information.

The Information Commissioner’s Office has created a model publication scheme that all

public authorities must use. It also specifies how public authorities should make the information available, what charges can be made, and what the council needs to tell

1 ‘Freedom of Information Act 2000’ https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/36/contents 2 ‘What is the Freedom of Information Act?’ https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-freedom-of-information/what-is-the-foi-act/ 3 ‘Guide to Freedom of Information’ pg. 5 https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisations/guide-to-freedom-of-information-4-9.pdf 4 ‘Freedom of Information Act 2000’ https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/36/contents

Page 96 12 | P a g e

members of the public about the scheme.5 The model publication scheme describes the seven types (classes) of information that should be published.

IV. Requests Received and Timescales for Response

6.7 When a request for information is received, the council has a responsibility to tell the applicant whether it holds any information falling within the scope of their request and to provide that information, normally within 20 working days. For a request to be valid under Section 8 of the FOIA it must be in writing, include the requester’s real name, include an address for correspondence and describe the information requested. It does not apply to all enquiries made to the council for information, the provisions of the Act need only to come into force if the council cannot provide the requested information straight away or if the requester makes it clear they expect a response under the Act.6 6.8 The ICO has set the threshold for responding to requests within 20 days at 90% and can monitor authorities who repeatedly or seriously fail to respond to FOI requests within the appropriate timescales.7

V. Exemptions

6.9 In some cases there will be circumstances in which the council should not make public some or all of the information requested. The FOIA contains a number of exemptions that do not permit the council to disclose information for a number of reasons.

6.10 There are 23 exemptions included under FOIA and all exemptions are classified as either ‘absolute exemptions’ or ‘qualified exemptions’. When an absolute exemption applies, information should not be released under the FOIA. For example, “information already reasonably accessible by other means” such as information held by North Yorkshire County Council/information available on HBC’s website are absolute exemptions.

6.11 Most exemptions are qualified exemptions. When a qualified exemption applies, a public interest test must be carried out. The public interest test requires the council to disclose information unless the council considers that the public interest in withholding information outweighs that of disclosing it. For example, “information intended for future publication” is a qualified exemption. A full list of exemptions and whether they are qualified or absolute can be found under Appendix M.

6.12 If the council considers that an exemption for the release of information applies, then it must issue a written refusal notice specifying which exemptions the council is using and the reasons why. If the council has completed a public interest test under a qualified exemption, then the council should explain why it considers the use of the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information. The refusal notice must be issued promptly, or within 20 working days.8 The refusal notice should also give details of any internal review procedure and explain the requester’s right to complain to the ICO. This should include the contact details for the ICO

VI. Internal Reviews

5 ‘Model Publication Scheme’ https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-freedom-of-information/publication-scheme/ 6 ‘What should we do when we receive a request for information’ https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-freedom-of- information/receiving-a-request/ 7 ‘Monitoring compliance’ - https://ico.org.uk/action-weve-taken/monitoring-compliance/ 8 ‘Time limits for compliance’ https://ico.org.uk/media/1622/time-for-compliance-eir-guidance.pdf Page 97 13 | P a g e

6.13 Under the FOIA, there is no obligation for an authority to provide a complaints process or internal review process.9 However, it is good practice (under Section 45 Code of Practice) and most authorities choose to do so. The following guidance is provided by the ICO regarding internal reviews:

 ensure the procedure is triggered whenever a requester expresses dissatisfaction with

the outcome;  make sure it is a straightforward, single-stage process;  make a fresh decision based on all the available evidence that is relevant to the date of the request, not just a review of the first decision;  ensure the review is done by someone who did not deal with the request, where possible, and preferably by a more senior member of staff; and  ensure the review takes no longer than 20 working days in most cases, or 40 in exceptional circumstances.10

6.14 The ICO also recommends that internal reviews are requested as soon as possible and within two months of the requestor receiving a final response to their FOI request.11

6.15 When an authority makes a decision not to disclose information, and relies on an exemption, they are obliged to notify the requestor of the procedure for dealing with complaints. The complaints procedure should provide a fair and thorough review of handling issues and of decisions made, including decisions taken about public interest tests. It should enable a fresh decision to be taken based on a reconsideration of all the relevant factors.

6.16 Where the outcome of a complaint is a decision that information should be disclosed which was previously withheld, the information in question should be disclosed as soon as practicable and the applicant should be informed when this will be undertaken. Where the outcome of a complaint is that the decision to withhold information is upheld, or is otherwise in the authority's favour, the applicant should be informed of his or her right to refer to the ICO.12 The ICO acts as the independent review body for requestors that are not satisfied with the response to an FOI from an organisation (see following section).

6.17 The Code of Practice and ICO Guidance both state that the review should be undertaken by “someone senior to the person who took the original decision, where this is reasonably practicable”.13

VII. The Information Commissioner’s Office and Referrals

6.18 The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is the independent regulatory body for FOI requests and is the independent appointed body to investigate complaints from members of the public who believe an authority has failed to respond correctly to a request for information. The ICO produces guidance for public authorities on how to deal with requests and how/when exemptions should be engaged. If the requester is unhappy with the outcome of a request for information, the council can provide an internal review. If the requester is still unhappy following the review or the council fails to review the original decision, they are able to refer this to the ICO for independent investigation.

9 ‘When can we refuse a request for information’ https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-freedom-of-information/refusing-a-request/ 10 ‘When can we refuse a request for information’ https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-freedom-of-information/refusing-a-request/ 11 ‘How to access information from a public body’ https://ico.org.uk/your-data-matters/official-information/ 12 ‘Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs’ Code of Practice on the discharge of public authorities’ functions under Part 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, Issued under section 45 of the Act’ - https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/235286/0033.pdf 13 ‘Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs’ Code of Practice on the discharge of public authorities’ functions under Part 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, Issued under section 45 of the Act’ - https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/235286/0033.pdf

Page 98 14 | P a g e

6.19 The ICO has a general duty to investigate complaints from members of the public and publishes all decision notices following investigations of the way organisations have dealt with FOI requests at the requests of individual complainants.14 If the ICO finds that an organisation has breached the Act, a decision notice would state what needs to be done to put things right.

6.20 A decision notice may state that requests have been dealt with correctly. However, if the ICO find that the FOIA has been breached, there may be some steps that need to be taken to put things right, such as disclosing some or all of the requested information. When considering ICO decisions approximately 50% of cases that are resolved by decision notice require the disclosure of some or all of the information requested. The ICO does not impose penalties on public authorities or provide compensation to requestors.

6.21 If a breach of the Act does not fall within the scope of a decision notice, the ICO may resolve the issue informally or decide to issue an enforcement notice. The ICO may use an enforcement notice if a public authority has failed to adopt the publication scheme or failed to publish information in accordance with it.

6.22 The ICO may also use an enforcement notice if an authority repeatedly fails to comply with its obligations, for example, through the publication of statistics or problems with the way FOI requests are dealt with in the media. In these cases the ICO may issue an enforcement notice covering a number of different requests, whether or not the ICO has received specific complaints.

6.23 If a public authority fails to follow good practice as set down in the codes of practice, the ICO may issue a practice recommendation. For example, the ICO may recommend that an internal review procedure is implemented, or staff training is improved. These recommendations are not legally binding, but the ICO publishes and publicises all practice recommendations.

6.24 If a public authority or requester disagrees with a decision notice, an appeal can be lodged to the First Tier Tribunal within 28 calendar days. If the Tribunal determines that the ICO’s decision was wrong in law, it can overturn the decision. Complex cases can also be referred to the Upper Tribunal Chamber.

6.25 The ICO is also subject to FOI requests and therefore subject to the FOIA similar to any other relevant organisation.

VIII. Cabinet Office Code of Practice

6.26 On 4 July 2018, the Cabinet Office published an updated Code of Practice to provide guidance to public authorities on the discharged of their functions and responsibilities under Part I (Access to information held by public authorities) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (“the Act’).15 The previous Code of Practice was published in 2004 which meant that the Code did not reflect subsequent developments in good practice. The new code provides

updated and expanded guidance to public authorities and was published in response to the

Independent Commission on Freedom of Information’s report following feedback from a public consultation.

14 ‘ICO Decision Notices’- https://icosearch.ico.org.uk/s/search.html?collection=ico-meta&profile=decisions&query 15 ‘Freedom of Information Code of Practice’ – July 2018 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/722165/FOI-Code-of-Practice-July- 2018.pdf Page 99 15 | P a g e

6.27 Any changes recommended in the updated Code of Practice have been considered as far as possible in this report. A copy of the updated Code of Practice is attached at Appendix N.

c) Freedom of Information Process

I. How FOI requests are handled

o Who is responsible for responding?

6.28 The operation of the FOI Scheme at Harrogate Borough Council (HBC) is the responsibility of the Legal and Governance Service within the Department of Corporate Affairs. The Legal Assistant (Debt and Information Law) (LADIL) oversees and co-ordinates the overall FOI process with departmental representatives’ co-ordinating responses to requests on behalf of their section/department. Officers are required to comply with the FOI scheme and ensure requests received are entered in the FOI log.

6.29 The majority of the council’s CIPFA’s Nearest Neighbours stated that the responsibility for responses to FOI requests was located within either Legal Services (four councils) or Corporate Support/Services Team (four councils). The other councils stated that it was located within Digital/Customer Services (three councils), governance/information (two councils).

6.30 The majority of the council’s CIPFA’s Nearest Neighbours stated that there was one officer who coordinated responses (eight councils) with three councils who did not have a dedicated officer.

6.31 At Craven District Council, the responsibility for responding to FOI requests is overseen by the Information and Governance Manager (IGM) with the support of administration officers.

6.32 There is no guidance or legal requirement for the location of the responsibility for responding to FOI requests. At HBC the responsibility for responding to/coordinating FOI requests within Legal Services is consistent with other authorities and therefore the Commission considered this was appropriate.

o What is the policy?

6.33 The council does not have a separate FOI policy. The legislation and ICO guidance is used to deal with FOI requests, which are underpinned by the Code of Practice. A link to the FOIA is provided as part of the submission of an FOI request form on the website. When the council’s CIPFA nearest neighbour websites were reviewed, three out of 15 councils had FOI policies on their website.

6.34 An FOI policy was discussed by the Commission at a meeting on 19 February 2018 (see Appendix G) and it was considered that the reference to FOI legislation and guidance was not clear on the council’s website (see paragraph 6.45 for website improvements) and the legislation was sometimes difficult to understand. It was discussed that potentially a simple policy could be developed for publication.

6.35 At the meeting on 26 November 2018 it was agreed that a simple plain English FOI policy should be developed and that all FOI requests and responses made could be provided on the council’s website because this would increase the transparency of the council and may reduce the number of FOI requests made. It was noted that this could include a search facility and a frequently asked questions area.

Recommendation (1): Page 100 16 | P a g e

Information about the ICO guidance and FOI legislation should be available on the council’s website and a simple plain English FOI policy should be developed

Recommendation (2):

All FOI requests and responses should be published on the council website this could include a search facility and frequently asked questions

o How are requests received?

6.36 FOI requests at the council can be received in a number of different ways:

 FOI request form on the council’s website  Dedicated FOI email address  Letter  Emails direct to officers

6.37 Requests received via the FOI request form on the council’s website, emails to the dedicated FOI email address and letters addressed “Freedom of Information request” are received by the LADIL. All other FOI requests are received directly by officers across the council.

6.38 The updated Code of Practice provides further guidance surrounding FOI requests submitted through social media, stating that requests submitted through social media will be valid where it meets the requirements of Section 8 of the FOIA by providing an applicant’s name and address for correspondence and a clear request for information (see Appendix N for the updated Code of Practice).

6.39 Addresses for correspondence can take the form of an email address or a unique name or identifier on a social media platform (for example a Twitter handle). Requests must be addressed to the public authority. As part of the “mystery shopper” exercise, in which anonymous FOI requests were submitted, one question was submitted via Twitter (not submitted as an FOI request) and did not receive a response.

6.40 If the information is held corporately or covers a number of services then the response will be provided directly from the LADIL. The LADIL will log the request in the FOI log and will complete the relevant information. If the information is not held centrally, the request is forwarded onto the departmental representatives to coordinate a response who will be responsible for completing the FOI log. FOI requests can also be received directly by Officers. There is a guidance document and standard response templates available for staff to deal with FOI requests; these are accessible by all staff on the council’s intranet.

6.41 It was confirmed that requests are responded to in the format received (unless the applicant requests otherwise). In regards to ‘webform’, when requests are submitted using webform it creates an email which is sent to the central FOI inbox and usually the response will by email (as that is what the applicant provides for response) but it could be by letter if that is what the applicant requests.

6.42 At Craven District Council, the majority of requests are received via the dedicated FOI email address, letter or the ‘Contact Us’ page on the council’s website. Requests received via email received an automatic acknowledgment and all others are acknowledged by staff. Requests are logged and the system provides automatic due by dates and statistics are automatically

Page 101 17 | P a g e

collected to ensure requests are dealt with efficiently. If requests are straightforward for example where information is already published or it is the responsibility of NYCC, they are dealt with by two FOI administrators and are not forwarded to service managers. When a request requires a service manager response, these are recorded.

6.43 The HBC FOI log was analysed and it was found that it was not possible to interrogate information to find out how the requests were received as this is not accurately recorded. If this information was available, it would allow the organisation to understand the mechanism by which requests were received and therefore inform analysis of contact with the council.

6.44 The Commission considered that the FOI log could be used more effectively to understand the methods of contact with the council and improve electronic methods of communication. This could be undertaken by ensuring that the method of FOI requests used is captured in the FOI log and monitored/reported on a regular basis.

6.45 The mystery shopper FOI request via Twitter demonstrated that there was some difficulty in identifying requests for information and potential FOI requests via social media. The new Code of Practice highlights that requests for information via social media will be valid if they meet the requirements in Section 8 and therefore the council’s social media accounts should be monitored for the purposes of FOI requests so they can be identified and passed on to be dealt with through the appropriate mechanisms.

Recommendation (3):

Central FOI Log

b) Ensure that the log records where requests are received (e.g. via letter/email/web-form)

Recommendation (4):

Code of Practice

b) The council should review the updated code of practice and implement any required changes to meet the social media requirements as detailed in the section Rights of Access paragraph 1.16

o Publication Scheme and website

6.46 The FOIA requires public authorities to have a publication scheme, specified by the ICO, and to publish information covered by the scheme. The scheme must set out classes of information routinely available and to achieve this, the ICO has developed a model publication scheme.16 The Publication Scheme also provides specific information about the council and information can also be requested via Subject Access Requests and Environmental Information Regulations Requests etc.

6.47 Providing information on the council’s website both as required in the legislation and proactively means that FOI requests received for the same information can be signposted to the published information, potentially reducing the workload in responding to requests and the number of requests received.

16 ‘Data Transparency’ https://www.harrogate.gov.uk/info/20135/data_protection_and_freedom_of_information/381/data_transparency Page 102 18 | P a g e

6.48 The council publishes as much information as possible on the council’s external website and it is the currently the top website nationally on SOCITM Better Connected and SiteMorse, which compares the council’s websites for the purposes of accessibility and user experience.

6.49 The customer survey results showed that the majority of respondents had looked at the council’s website prior to submitting an FOI request. This could indicated that the information requested was not published. The council has also received an increasing number of FOI requests over the past five years this may also indicate that the information requested has not been available on the website.

6.50 The Commission reviewed the council’s website, including the publication scheme and discussed that further improvements could be made to expand the range and detail of information available online to potentially reduce requests made for published information.

6.51 When submitting an FOI request through the council’s website, there is limited information available about the legislative background or guidance.

6.52 When the FOI information available on the websites of the council’s CIPFA Nearest Neighbours was reviewed, information was provided to assist members of the public that was not available on HBC’s website. For example:

 Details of how FOI requests can be made  How the council handles requests  Complaints, reviews and appeals  Details of the ICO  FOI guidance  FOI fees  FOI exemptions  Records of previous FOI requests  Model publication scheme

6.53 The updated Code of Practice also refers to the publication of information and recommends that public authorities with over 100 full time equivalent (FTE) employees should, as a matter of best practice, publish compliance statistics for handling requests for information under the Act on a quarterly basis (see below). Currently, the council does not publish this information, it should be noted that currently most authorities do not publish this information.

Information should include:

 The number of requests received during the period;  The number of the received requests that have not yet been processed (you may also wish to show how many of these outstanding requests have extended deadlines or a stopped clock, e.g. because a fee notice has been issued);  The number of the received requests that were processed in full (including numbers for those that were met within the statutory deadline, those where the deadline was extended and those where the processing took longer than the statutory deadline);  The number of requests where the information was granted in full;  The number of requests where the information was refused in full (you may wish to separately identify those where this was because the information was not held);  The number of requests where the information was granted in part and refused in part;

Page 103 19 | P a g e

 The number of requests received that have been referred for internal review annually.17

6.54 The Commission considered that the council’s website could be reviewed to ensure that appropriate information was published in accordance with the model publication scheme and was kept up to date. This could improve transparency and potentially reduce the number of FOI requests received. This review should also include publication of the information required in the new Code of Practice.

Recommendation (5):

Website improvements:

The FOI/Publication Scheme part of the website should be regularly reviewed and updated in response to feedback from the public. This would ensure that appropriate information is published in accordance with the model publication scheme and kept up to date

Recommendation (6):

Code of Practice

b) The council should publish and report compliance statistics in accordance with paragraph 8.5 of the Code of Practice

II. Analysis of the number of requests received

o Total requests received

6.55 Performance statistics were obtained from the FOI log which detailed the volume of requests, requests refused (including partial refusal), response rates, number of internal reviews and referrals to the ICO for the council. It should be noted that the information contained in the FOI log is covered by a number of recommendations.

6.56 The graph below shows the number of requests received by HBC from 1 April 2015 until 31 March 2018.

Number of Requests Received

883 900 823 736 800 697 686

700

600 500 400 300 200 100

17 ‘Freedom of Information0 Code of Practice’ – July 2018 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/744071/CoP_FOI_Code_of_Practi2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 ce_- _Minor_Amendments_20180926_.pdf Page 104 20 | P a g e

6.57 The graph above shows that there has been an increase in FOI requests received from 697 in 2013/14 to 883 in 2017/18. The total number of requests received is reported quarterly to Management Board, Cabinet and Overview and Scrutiny.

6.58 The graph below shows the total number of FOI requests received from 1 April 2015 until the request was made for information during 2017/18 (i.e. the information does not include the full year numbers for 2017/18) and compares the council with its CIPFA Nearest Neighbours:

Total Requests Received Since 2015/16 Compared with Average

4000 3478 3500 3000 2532 2393 2500 2200 1943 1914 2034 1909 1956 2000 1848 1844 1417 1500 1348 Totals 1000 Average 500

0

6.59 In terms of volumes of requests received since 2015/16, HBC has received more than the average number of FOI requests compared to CIPFA’s Nearest Neighbours (+15%). HBC has received the third highest total number of requests compared with CIPFA nearest neighbours, with South Somerset having the highest number. Where authorities were not able to provide FOI requests for all years, they have not been included in the graph above.

6.60 The information shows that the number of requests received by HBC has increased steadily over time and that the council has received more than the average number of requests compared to similar authorities since 2015/16.

o Requests by Department

6.61 The graph below shows a breakdown of FOI requests received per department for 2016/17 and 2017/18. Requests that have been directed to the Chief Executive and requests that are referred to NYCC directly have been listed separately. Some requests involve multiple departments and are listed under ‘Central FOI’.

Freedom of Information Requests Received by Page 105 21 | P a g e Department 2016/17 and 2017/18 450 400 381

6.62 The graph shows that the Department of Community received the largest number of requests for 2016/17 and 2017/18, followed by Corporate and Economy and Culture, respectively. There has been a decrease in the numbers of FOI’s received in 4 Departments, with numbers increasing in Community, Economy and Culture and the Chief Executive. The biggest increase has been within Community with an additional 81 requests (21%). The biggest decrease was within Central FOI requests by 36 (47%).

6.63 The information shows that there are wide differences in the number of requests received per Department, with the majority of requests received by Community and the least amount of requests received by HCC and Chief Executive.

o Requests by Service

6.64 The graph below shows the number of FOI requests received per service for 2016/17 and 2017/18.

Freedom of Information Requests Received by Service 2016/17 2016/17

and 2017/18 2017/18

200 180 161 167175 160 141 129 140 119 120 91 100 76 79 64 78 73 80 54 56 60 52 29 3530 36 40 1814 23 20 1 3 2 0 0

Page 106 22 | P a g e

6.65 The graph shows that Safer Communities (167 in 2016/17 and 168 in 2017/18) and Finance (161 in 2016/17 and 125 in 2017/18) received the majority of requests. HCC and the Chief Executive received the smallest number of FOI requests. It also shows that a large proportion of requests are for information held by NYCC (this is an absolute exemption under the FOIA). The majority of services saw an increase in the number of FOI requests between 2016/17

and 2017/18. Housing and Property Services saw the largest increases in FOI requests

received from 79 in 2016/17 to 141 in 2017/18.

6.66 No benchmarking information is available for CIPFA’s Nearest Neighbours for the split between departments and services.

o Numbers Refused/Partial Response

6.67 The FOIA contains a number of exemptions that do not permit the council to disclose information for a number of reasons. This is discussed in more detail in paragraphs 6.9 – 6.12.

6.68 The number of requests where information was withheld either partially or wholly by the council compared to the total number of requests per year is detailed in the table below. This table shows the number of requests in which exemptions have been used but does not include requests where the information is held by NYCC or requests for information accessible to the requester by other means (on the council’s website).

Year Requests Refused 2017/18 69 of 883 (7%) 2016/17 35 of 823 (4%) 2015/16 43 of 686 (6%) 2014/15 51 of 736 (7%) 2013/14 31 of 697 (4%)

6.69 This information shows that the number of FOI requests refused has increased; this could be as a result of the total numbers of requests received increasing in the same period of time. However, as a percentage of the total number of requests, the number of requests where information has been withheld has remained consistent.

6.70 No benchmarking information is available for CIPFA’s Nearest Neighbours on the number of requests refused.

6.71 The results from the customer survey showed that the majority of respondents stated that the information provided/response did not fully answer the request (nine out of 15). All the respondents who stated that their request was not dealt with in a timely manner stated that the response received did not answer their request. However, the majority of respondents (56%) stated that the overall quality of service provided in response to their FOI requests was either very good or good.

6.72 Additionally, the majority of respondents (eight out of 15) stated that an explanation was not provided if the information was withheld. Five respondents stated that they did receive an explanation and two respondents stated they did not know. Not all responses issued would have used an exemption.

6.73 For all FOI requests submitted under the “mystery shopper” exercise the information requested was provided.

Page 107 23 | P a g e

6.74 The numbers of requests where exemptions had been applicable has remained fairly consistent. The majority of respondents to the customer survey indicated that the information provided did not fully answer their request and respondents also indicated that where information was withheld, an explanation was not provided. However, the majority of respondents rated the overall quality of service provided as either very good or good.

o Reasons for refusal

6.75 When a request is received, the council has to consider whether it can release the information. It must apply exemptions as detailed in FOIA (see paragraph 6.9) and a full list of exemptions can be found at Appendix M. The following table shows the top five exemptions applied by the council from the FOI log, with totals (as far as can be determined):

Top 5 Exemptions Used in Top 5 Exemptions Used in 2017/18 2016/17

100 92 90 90 78 80 80 70 70 60 60 50 50 40 40

30 24 30 20 20 9 9 10 6 5 10 4 4 3 0 0 NYCC S21 and S21 S40(2) S12 NYCC S21 NYCC for S14(2) S12 S22 for parts part

6.76 The information above indicates that following exemptions were the most frequently used in 2016/17 and 2017/18:  Section 21 – Information accessible to applicant by other means and in particular requests directed to NYCC (in 2016/17 this related to 78 requests)  Section 21 – Information accessible to applicant by other means, other than NYCC (in 2016/17 this related to nine requests)  Section 22 - Information intended for future publication (in 2017/18 this related to 24 requests in conjunction to Section 21)  Section 14 (2) – Vexatious requests (in 2016/17 this related to four requests)  Section 12 - Exemption where cost of compliance exceeds appropriate limit (in 2017/18 this related to five requests)

6.77 In 2016/17, of the 823 requests received, 139 of these requests had utilised exemptions for all or part of the response received. However, when excluding responses that were referred onto NYCC, 61 requests utilised exemptions for all or part of a response (7.4%).

6.78 In 2017/18, of the 883 requests received, 171 of these requests had utilised exemptions for all or part of the response provided. However, when excluding responses that were referred onto NYCC (e.g. requests relating to schools or public highways), 79 requests utilised exemptions for all or part of a response (8.9%).

6.79 It should be noted that it was difficult to analyse the exemption information in more detail within the FOI log as it was not always up to date. This was because the appropriate section was not always completed within services. It was confirmed that due to the lack of information, additional support was required from the LADIL to ensure the relevant Page 108 24 | P a g e

information was provided regarding the use of exemptions. It was also noted that it would be useful if discussions with the LADIL about the use of exemptions could be undertaken prior to a response to an FOI request being sent out to ensure consistency.

6.80 At Craven District Council, there is an overall summary of the FOI response provided from officers who are responding to the FOI requests to the IGM. This details whether the information was provided in whole, in part or refused due to the use of an exemption. For all responses issued, officers fill in a template (see below) and provide this information to the IGM:

For each response please advise whether the information requested has been:

Indicate which applies Provided in whole (all information given) Provided only in part Refused eg because an exemption in the law

This enables the Information Governance Manager to accurately record and determine the

number of requests refused/partially refused and types of exemption applied.

6.81 In summary, the completion of the FOI log is not always undertaken in a timely manner at HBC regarding the use of exemptions. It is difficult to know which exemptions have been applied, whether the request has been answered in full or ensuring consistency across services. This requires the LADIL to dedicate additional time and support so that this is undertaken and the FOI log completed. It was agreed that the number of FOI requests per department/service and the exemptions used should be reported.

Recommendation (7):

The number of FOI requests per department/service and exemptions used should be included in the corporate quarterly performance reports

Recommendation (8):

FOI log

b) Ensure that the use of exemptions and partial refusals is completed in the FOI log at the time response is sent

c) The use of exemptions should be discussed with the Legal Assistant (Debt and Information Law)

o Numbers unanswered

6.82 The information in the FOI log in 2016/17 showed that 24 requests did not have a date of response listed. This may mean that the request was unanswered or the officer may have failed to record a date for the response in the FOI log. In 2017/18, two requests did not have a date of response, which similarly may be due to a request not being answered or the date of response was not recorded.

Page 109 25 | P a g e

6.83 The implication of this is that requests which do not have a date of response are included in the figures for responses sent after 20 working days and therefore the statistics may not be accurate. More significantly, this may also mean that a response was not provided. Where no response was indicated, it was confirmed that the LADIL had to seek further information about the response requiring additional time and support.

6.84 There is no consistent completion of information in the FOI log by services therefore requiring additional time and support from the LADIL. There is no indication that this does not take place, however, this is not recorded consistently in the FOI log. Any recommendations regarding the completion of the FOI log are included later in the report.

III. Timescales for response

o What are the target/set timescales?

6.85 The FOIA requires public authorities to respond to requests within 20 working days. The ICO has set the threshold for responding to requests at 90%, which the council aims to meet, although this is not a formal performance indicator. The performance for meeting the ICO compliance rate is not formally reported to Councillors/members of the public. The number of FOI requests received and the number of requests which go to internal review are reported to the Overview and Scrutiny Commission and Cabinet in the quarterly Performance reports.

6.86 At Craven District Council, compliance rate performance is reported quarterly to Management Board. Information was not requested from the council’s CIPFA Nearest Neighbours on where the performance for meeting the ICO compliance rate was reported.

Recommendation (9):

The council should always inform requesters if responses are to be delayed in excess of the 20 working day target

Recommendation (10):

Report the council’s performance in responding to FOI requests within 20 working days as part of the corporate quarterly performance reporting process

o How does the council perform?

6.87 The graph below shows HBC performance in responding to FOI requests from 2013/14 to 2017/18. Prior to the 31 April 2017, the ICO required at least 85% of all FOI requests to be responded to within 20 working days. From 1 May 2017 onwards, the ICO requires at least 90% of all FOI requests to be responded to within 20 working days.

Harrogate Borough Council - Requests Responded

Within Statutory 20 Working Days

100% 4% 6% 4% 4% 8% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% Page96% 110 94% 96% 96% 91% 26 | P a g e 40% 30% 20%

RequestsReceived 10%

6.88 The information above demonstrates that the council met the ICO target for compliance every year. Between 2016/17 and 2017/18, response rates to FOI requests have decreased although in the same period total numbers received have increased.

6.89 The results of the customer survey showed that the majority of respondents (11 out of 15) stated that the responses were received within 20 working days. Furthermore, looking at the respondents who stated that they did not receive a response in a timely manner (within 20 working days), all of them stated that they were not advised about the delay and kept informed about the process. One respondent provided their reference number and so it was

possible to check the outcome of the request and it was found that a response was sent two working days after the request.

6.90 As part of the “mystery shopper” exercise, in which anonymous FOI requests were submitted, out of the three requests submitted (two via the FOI email address and one via the council’s form on the website), all requests received a response within 20 working days. One of the requests received a response the next day.

6.91 The graph below shows the number of responses sent after 20 working days as a % of requests received per department with the number of FOI requests sent after the 20 working days shown in brackets.

Responses Sent After 20 Working Days as % of Requests Received Per Department 2016/17 and 2017/18

16% 14%, 55 14%

12% 10%, 4 10%

8%, 23 8% 2016/17 6%, 8 6% 2017/18 4%, 11 4%, 3 4%, 10 4% 1%, 1 2% 1%, 1

0% Community Corporate Economy and HCC Chief NYCC Central FOI Culture Executive

6.92 The Department that had the largest number of requests that were responded to after the 20 working days was Community for 2016/17 and Central FOI in 2017/18. This Department also Page 111 27 | P a g e

received the largest number of requests for these two years. Performance has decreased across all Departments from 2016/17 to 2017/18. For example, responses sent after the 20 working days in Community decreased from 8% (23 responses) in 2016/17 to 14% (55 responses) in 2017/18. Response to Central FOI requests decreased from 1% of responses after 20 working days in 2016/17 to 10% in 2017/18. However, when reviewing this by number of requests, this only relates to 1 request in 2016/17 and 4 requests in 2017/18. As noted above however, the council met the ICO target compliance rates every year.

6.93 When analysing by service, the number of responses sent after 20 working days as a % of requests received by service is shown below with the number of requests shown in brackets:

2016/17 Responses Sent After 20 Working Days as % of Requests Received Per Service 2016/17 and 2017/18 2017/18 25% 20% (6) 20% 16% (23)

14% (25) 15% 13% (3) 10% (8) 11% (7) 10% 8% (4) 8% (3) 7% (1) 7% (4) 7% (11) 6% (7) 6% (2) 4% (3) 5% 3% (4) 3% (1) 1% (1) 1% (1) 1% (2) 0%

6.94 The graph above shows that for 2016/17, Organisational Development and Improvement (ODI) provided the highest number of responses after 20 working days as a % of requests received. For 2017/18, ICT provided the highest number of responses after 20 working days as a % of requests received. As with Departments, the majority of Services saw a decrease in performance for responses sent after 20 working days as a % of requests. ODI saw an improvement from 13% (3 requests) in 2016/17 to 3% (1 request) in 2017/18. ICT saw the largest decrease in performance from 6% (2 requests) in 2016/17 to 20% (6 requests) in 2017/18.

6.95 In comparison to the council’s CIPFA nearest neighbours, the table below shows the number of requests responded to within 20 working days compared with the ICO compliance rate for 2017/18: 100% 99% 97% 91% 90% 93% 93% 92% 92% 92% 87% 90% 80% Response Rate 80% 70% 60% ICO Compliance 50% 44% 40%

30% Average 18% Response 20% Rate 10% 0% Page 112 28 | P a g e

6.96 This graph shows that the council exceeded the average response rate in comparison to CIPFA’s nearest neighbours in 2017/18 and also exceeded the ICO’s target rate for compliance of 90% response rate within 20 working days. South Somerset has the lowest compliance rate, however the validity of their data is poor and so the actual compliance rate may be higher. Mid Sussex Council has the highest compliance rate, with 99% of requests responded to within 20 working days. The average response rate is 82% which is below the ICO compliance rate. When excluding South Somerset, the average rate rises to 87%. HBC remains above average with a response rate of 91%.

6.97 In Departments and Services across HBC there are differing response rates but overall, HBC has met the ICO compliance rate for all years since 2013/14. In comparison to the council’s CIPFA nearest neighbours, HBC is above average. It should be noted that one council has a target of 100% compliance with any variance reported to management on a quarterly basis and one council has a target of 75% response rate within 20 working days. The Commission noted that (as detailed previously) the council does not have a formal performance indicator for meeting ICO response targets. The consideration of reporting performance data regarding the ICO compliance rate is detailed at paragraph 6.85.

Recommendation (11):

The council has a corporate performance indicator to respond to all FOI requests within 20 working days with a target of 90%. All requests that fail to meet the 20 working day deadline should be reported quarterly with reasons provided

IV. General

o What are the reasons for making FOI requests?

6.98 FOI requests can be received from numerous sources including members of the public, press, other organisations etc. All requests must include the name and contact details of the requestor and therefore it is possible for the council to analyse this information and potentially identify sources of requests. At present, the council does not record the source of FOI requests on the log (where possible) and does not review the log for the purposes of analysing sources of requests, themes and issues.

6.99 Craven District Council analyse where requests are received and a summary is reported of the major sources of requests such as journalists, political groups, the press, national campaigns, members of the public, etc. Approximately 40% of requests received at Craven District Council are from companies who request information for marketing or for the purpose of selling goods and services.

6.100 The FOI log requires services to record the hours spent responding to requests, however, this currently does not consistently get completed and therefore costs cannot be identified.

6.101 Craven District Council ensures that the time spent replying to FOI requests is recorded by officers and sent to the Information Governance Manager who is able to record estimate time spent on a request which allows him to ascertain costs based on an average rate per hour:

Page 113 29 | P a g e

Please also separately send me an estimate of the time spent on replying to this request, e.g.

Estimated time spent on replying to this X hours, y minutes request

6.102 The HBC FOI log does not facilitate the recording of the source of a request, so that analysis can be undertaken to understand the potential sources of requests. In addition to this, no analysis is undertaking on information in the log of potential reasons why requests are made, to predict key themes, national campaigns and obtain a better understanding of current public views.

6.103 The Commission considered the FOI log noted that an estimate of costs could not be undertaken due to lack of completion. It was also considered that additional information included on the log regarding the sources of information and analysis undertaken on the subject matter of the request.

Recommendation (12):

FOI Log

d) The FOI log records the source of FOI requests where possible (e.g. journalists,

members of the public etc.) and it is required to be completed. This should be

reported quarterly

e) Officers are required to complete the FOI log information for time taken to

respond to a FOI request. This should be reported quarterly

f) All Councillors should be provided with access to the FOI log to review FOI

requests made and responses provided

o Are there any mechanisms to request information other than FOI requests?

6.104 The council provides information to the public on a daily basis through telephone, face to face and e-mail contact with officers who respond as part of their roles within the council. The Customer Services team is a dedicated section that receives requests for information, such as bin collection dates, housing queries, and also directs people to appropriate officers within the council. Requests for information received in the course of normal council business

are not recorded in the central FOI log. The council publishes as much information as

possible on the council’s website to reduce potential FOI requests (see paragraph 6.6 for further details on the publication scheme).

Page 114 30 | P a g e

6.105 According to ICO guidance, every enquiry does not have to be formally treated as a request under the Act. For example, a customer enquiry would be dealt with under the usual customer service procedures. The provisions of the Act need only to come into force if:

 You cannot provide the requested information straight away; or  The requester makes it clear they expect a response under the Act.18

o Ensuring consistency across the council

6.106 In order to ensure consistency across the council, support is provided to services in a number of ways:

 There are nominated champions in most departments areas  Admin support is provided from corporate workplace support  Legal support is provided from legal services and in particular, the LADIL  Training/experience of staff in each area  Response templates are available to use, including those using exemptions  There is a central log for all services to complete  There is a mandatory e-learning course for all staff

6.107 The Commission sought to consider consistency in response to FOI requests across the council and therefore invited the FOI ‘champion’ for the Planning and Development Service to a meeting on 2 July 2018 to understand how requests were dealt with in this area.

6.108 In the Planning and Development Service, all officers are required to understand their responsibilities regarding FOI requests so that they can recognise a request when received. When received, an FOI request is logged onto the central log, which identifies who would be dealing with the request and also the deadline for response. Officers look to see if previous requests have been received that are similar and ascertain who they need to contact for a response. Contact is also made with the LADIL if they are unsure about the use of exemptions or charges, to ensure they are consistent with the legislation. Within the planning and development service, very few requests exceed the 20 working day deadline for response.

6.109 The LADIL identified the following in terms of consistency across the council:

 Designated FOI champions are not nominated in each department  There is mixed experience and knowledge of FOI amongst staff across the council  There are mixed approaches to completion of the FOI log which have been detailed in this report  In some circumstances the wrong templates are used for responses (e.g. providing the old council address)  There is no consistent use of the reference numbering system in the FOI log when providing response so it is difficult for the LADIL to determine which requests have been responded to  Not all staff forward on the response provided to the LADIL so in some cases it is not known if a response has been provided  Some staff do not provide enough detail/explanation if an exemption has been used

18 ‘What should we do when we receive a request for information’ https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-freedom-of- information/receiving-a-request/ Page 115 31 | P a g e

6.110 As part of the “mystery shopper” exercise two of the four requests submitted anonymously to the council had used the wrong template which meant that incorrect details for the ICO were provided (the Officers who responded were notified in order to rectify this as soon as possible). Further work also identified that the compulsory online learning course for all staff was not completed by a number of staff (this information has been relayed to service managers).

6.111 This review showed that there were currently a large number of officers across the council responding to requests and in some cases the response was passed to other support officers to send out. This means that it is not always the most appropriate officer/expertise that responds to/sends out the request. There is a potential therefore for a lack of consistency/understanding of this complex area of law that requires additional advice/support from the LADIL.

6.112 The Commission identified that there were a number of areas where improvements could be made to ensure consistency across the council (see paragraph 6.108); this resulted in additional time and support required from the LADIL. It was considered that consistency could be improved if the number of officers responding to FOI requests was reduced and the knowledge and understanding of those officers who are responding improved. It was

considered that all responses could be sent out by a single FOI Officer (the LADIL) and that

Officer is provided with a list of officers within the various council sections who can be contacted to collate/provide the information and discuss where exemptions should apply.

Recommendation (13):

Consistency

a) All responses to FOI requests should be provided by the LADIL in

consultation with the services involved

b) A small number of FOI contacts (with appropriate training) to be provided in

all services, to be responsible for providing information to the LADIL within

the response timescales

c) The LADIL should have responsibility for completing the FOI log

V. How are internal reviews undertaken?

o What is the policy/process?

6.113 The internal review process background information and legislation can be found in paragraphs 6.13 – 6.17. If a requester is unhappy with the response to an FOI request, they can request an internal review. If they are not satisfied with the outcome of the internal review then they can request an independent review from the ICO. Every response issued by the council to an FOI request should provide details of how to request an internal review and on-going rights with respect to a further complaint to the ICO. Requests for internal reviews must be within two months of the council providing a response. The council aims to undertake the review and issue responses within 20 working days.

Page 116 32 | P a g e

6.114 The table below sets out the number of internal reviews conducted from 2013/14 until 2017/18:

Year Total Number of Requests for Internal Reviews 2017/18 12 2016/17 8 2015/16 4 2014/15 1 2013/14 0

This shows that the numbers of internal reviews has increased every year (as has the number of FOI requests received) with a total of 12 being received in 2017/18. When the 12 requests received in 2017/18 are considered 10 (83%) of them supported the original response and 2 led to additional information being provided.

6.115 All of the council’s CIPFA Nearest Neighbours stated that there was an internal review process in place; however this was not documented formally which is comparable to HBC.

6.116 Information was requested from the council’s CIPFA Nearest Neighbours to provide a comparison of the number of internal reviews undertaken. The table below shows the number of internal reviews for the council compared with our CIPFA Nearest Neighbour’s for 2017/18:

Number of Internal Reviews for 2017/18 Compared with CIPFA

Nearest Neighbours Internal Reviews Average 18 17 16 16 14 12 12 12 10 10 8 8 7 6 4 3 4 2 1 1 2 0 0 0

6.117 The graph above shows that in 2017/18, the council received more than the average number (seven) of internal reviews compared to our CIPFA Nearest Neighbours.

6.118 The table below shows the percentage of internal reviews requested for 2017/18 compared with the total number of requests for the council and the CIPFA Nearest Neighbours:

Page 117 33 | P a g e

Percentage of Internal Reviews Compared with Total Number of Requests Received for 2017/18 Average

3.00% 2.70% 2.50%

1.98% 2.00% 1.86%

1.36% 1.50% 1.25%1.25% 1.07% 1.11% 1.00% 0.54% 0.50% 0.39% 0.16%0.21% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

6.119 The graph above shows that the council is above average in terms of the number of internal reviews requested in comparison with the total number of requests received. Horsham District Council has the highest % of internal reviews compared with the total number of requests in 2017/18 and Mid Sussex and Stafford Councils have the lowest percentage of internal reviews compared with the total number of requests.

6.120 In the customer survey, the majority of respondents (nine) stated that they were provided details of how to request an internal review in the response to a request. This is to be expected as the council’s policy is to provide details of how to request an internal review in every response provided as this is included in the response templates.

6.121 In the “mystery shopper” exercise, all responses provided details of how to request an internal review.

6.122 None of the council’s CIPFA Nearest Neighbours had a formal written internal review process. This is consistent with HBC where the internal review process is not provided in a formal document but is instead detailed in all responses sent. It should also be noted that the provision of an internal review process is consistent with the approach undertaken by the ICO (information review process) and other statutory internal review processes such as those required by the Assets of Community Value Regulations (part of the Localism Act).

o Who undertakes internal reviews? o Could there be potential conflicts of interest?

6.123 ICO guidance states the following about internal reviews (see also see paragraphs 6.13):

Councils should:

 “ensure the review is done by someone who did not deal with the request, where possible,’

and ‘preferably’

Page 118 34 | P a g e

 ‘be undertaken by a more senior member of staff” (the updated Code of Practice supports this approach)’ 19

6.124 At HBC, when a request for an internal review is received a case management file is opened and the Chief Solicitor arranges for a senior officer (who was not involved in the original request) to undertake the review. The nomination of the appropriate officer is determined by the availability of senior staff and those who were involved in the original request, in all cases the nominated officer is more senior to the officer who responded to the original request. In some cases the Chief Solicitor will undertake reviews if appropriate, and if sufficiently independent. Where possible, the senior officer is chosen from a council department that is unrelated to the subject matter of the request. Senior officers are selected from Directors, the Principal Lawyer (not after 2016/17) and Heads of Service. The nominated officer reviews the request, the response and the way it was handled, the Chief Solicitor provides advice on the requirements of the law.

6.125 The table below shows the senior officers that had undertaken internal reviews and for which service in 2016/17:

Culture, Legal Planning and Revenues and Senior Officer Tourism Community Services development Welfare Undertaking Review and Sport Head of Parks Head of Organisational, 1 Development and Improvement Director of Corporate 2 Affairs Chief Solicitor Head of Safer

Communities Head of Culture, 1 Tourism and Sport Director of Community Head of Finance 1 Principal Lawyer (only 1 2 to 2016/17) Cancelled (by

requestor) V The following table shows the senior officers that had undertaken internal reviews and for which service in 2017/18:

Culture, Legal Planning and Revenues and Senior Officer Tourism Community Services development Welfare Undertaking Review and Sport Head of Parks 2 Head of Organisational, 1 Development and Improvement Director of Corporate 1 Affairs Chief Solicitor 3 Head of Safer 1 1 Communities Head of Culture, 1 Tourism and Sport

19 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/722165/FOI-Code-of-Practice-July-2018.pdf Page 119 35 | P a g e

Director of Community 1 Head of Finance Principal Lawyer (only

to 2016/17) Cancelled (by 1 requestor)

6.126 The tables above shows that the Director of Corporate Affairs, Chief Solicitor and Principal Lawyers have conducted the most internal reviews in 2016/17 and 2017/18. All of the internal reviews were conducted by a member of staff who was not involved in the original request and they were also conducted by a more senior officer than the member of staff who provided the original information. Furthermore, of the 20 internal reviews undertaken, 18 of these were conducted by a senior member of staff from a different service. In 25% (five) of the internal reviews undertaken additional disclosures were made.

6.127 The majority of the council’s CIPFA nearest neighbours stated that internal reviews were coordinated by legal services, which is comparable to HBC. All of the council’s CIPFA nearest neighbours stated that internal reviews were undertaken by an officer who had not previously been involved in the original request, again comparable with HBC.

6.128 At Craven District Council, all complaints are coordinated by the IGM. Where internal reviews are requested they are undertaken by an officer who had not previously dealt with the original request. The IGM provides support for officers who conduct internal reviews, by providing a full briefing and draft response, guidance, details of any relevant precedent decisions and issues raised by the complainant.

6.129 When the ICO responds to FOI requests (see paragraph 6.25), they also have an internal review process. If an internal review is requested from the ICO the following details are provided:

 The ICO aims to respond within 20 working days  The internal review will not be handled by anyone who dealt with the original response  It may be necessary to consult the original request handler  It will be referred to someone with the appropriate level of seniority and expertise

Page 120 36 | P a g e

6.130 At HBC, all internal reviews have been undertaken by an officer not originally involved in the request. This is consistent with the process implemented by the ICO, in the new Code of Practice and the evidence from all CIPFA nearest neighbours. HBC also nominates a more senior member of staff that is ‘preferable’ in the ICO guidance. HBC also attempts to ensure that internal reviews are undertaken by senior officers of a different service; this is in addition to the guidance and is not a requirement in the new Code of Practice. It has been successful in achieving this separating in 18 of the 20 internal reviews identified/undertaken. In 25% (five) of the internal reviews undertaken additional disclosures were made.

6.131 As part of the work to consider Internal Reviews there was a suggestion that an external independent person could be employed/appointed by the council to undertake this. There was no evidence received that this approach was used by other authorities, including the ICO itself, and therefore no analysis/comparison could be undertaken. It was also noted that the ICO was in place as the independent body that members of the public could refer the way in which their FOI requests had been dealt with.

6.132 The Commission also considered that the number of referrals and decision notices about HBC FOI requests to the ICO could be a potential indicator about the appropriateness of the existing Internal Review process. This is considered in more detail in paragraphs 6.136 – 6.143. However, in summary there were no ICO decision notices issued in 2017/18 as a result of referrals and only two in the last five years. This is a low number and does not provide an indication that internal reviews are not being undertaken effectively.

6.133 The Commission considered that the Internal Review process in place at HBC was consistent with the process implemented by the ICO, the new Code of Practice and all CIPFA nearest neighbours. The process also exceeded ICO guidance requirements by being successful in ensuring that more senior officers undertook the review and that in the significant majority of reviews (18 out of 20) they were carried out by senior officers of a different service. There was no evidence from other similar authorities regarding the use of an independent person to undertake reviews. There was also no evidence of significant numbers of referrals to the ICO with subsequent decision notices that would indicate dissatisfaction with the current process. The Commission therefore considered that the existing internal review process operated appropriately and exceeded ICO guidance. It noted that the ICO was also available as an independent organisation set up to review responses to FOI requests on behalf of members of the public. It considered however that this could be reviewed if there were any future proposed changes to the current review process or significant increases in the number of decision notices as a result of referrals to the ICO.

o Where are they reported?

6.134 The quarterly performance report to Management Board, Cabinet and Overview and Scrutiny Commission includes information about FOI requests. The information includes the numbers of FOI requests and the number of internal reviews. The FOI process and information (including internal reviews) is also reviewed and reported in the Annual Governance Statement.

6.135 At Craven District Council, the number of internal reviews is reported to management board quarterly. Information was not requested from the council’s CIPFA Nearest Neighbours on where the performance information for internal reviews was reported.

6.136 The Commission considered that the reporting of internal reviews as part of the quarterly performance report was consistent with other authorities and enabled regular consideration including the Commission.

Page 121 37 | P a g e

VI. ICO Referrals

o Harrogate Borough Council

6.137 If a member of the public has requested an internal review and is still not satisfied with the response then they can seek a review of the council’s decision by the ICO. The ICO will request all available information, review the council’s decision and resolve the issue informally or issue a decision notice (a decision notice may also state that the council has dealt with a request correctly). However, if the ICO determines that the council has breached

the FOIA, the ICO can order the council to take steps to put things right through a decision or enforcement notice, see paragraphs 6.18 - 6.25.

6.138 The council provides information about potential referral to the ICO in all responses issued and all decision notices issued to HBC are available on the ICO website.20

6.139 The table below shows the number of decision notices issued from the ICO to HBC between 2013/14 to 2017/18.

Year Number of ICO Referrals 2017/18 0 2016/17 2 2015/16 0 2014/15 0 2013/14 0

6.140 The council has only had two decision notice issued from the ICO since 2013/14. The two decision notices are summarised below:

1. The first decision notice found in favour of the council and did not require any further action. However, this was then appealed to the Information Rights Tribunal by the

requestor, following which the Tribunal allowed the appeal. The Tribunal required the

council to respond to the information request on the basis that it does hold the information within the scope of the request.

2. The second decision notice found the council breached regulation 5(2) and regulation 11(4) of the Environmental Information Regulations but that it correctly withheld information. No further action was required by the council.

o CIPFA Nearest Neighbours

6.141 The graph below show the number of ICO decision notices issued to HBC compared to our CIPFA Nearest Neighbours in 2017/18. Information regarding ICO decision notices for previous years was not provided by all authorities so this has not been analysed.

Recommendation (14):

A formal written internal review process should be developed and made publically available

20 ‘ICO Decision Notices – Harrogate Borough Council’ https://icosearch.ico.org.uk/s/search.html?collection=ico- meta&profile=decisions&query&query=&f.By+authority|publicAuthority=Harrogate Borough Council Page 122 38 | P a g e

Number of ICO Decision Notices in 2017/18

8 7 6 5 4

3 ICO Referrals 2 Average 1 0

6.142 The graph shows that the council had less than the average number of ICO decision notices for 2017/18. Horsham District Council had the highest number of ICO decision notices in 2017/18 (seven). Harrogate, Mendip, Stafford and South Kesteven council’s did not have any ICO decision notices in 2017/18.

6.143 Following referral to the ICO, if the complainant is still not satisfied with the review then they can appeal the decision to the First-Tier Tribunal (Information Rights), this can be undertaken by either party. The Tribunal is independent of government and will review decisions made by the ICO and sometimes disagrees with the decision of the ICO.

 Cumbria County Council recently appealed an ICO decision notice which upheld a requestor’s complaint. The Tribunal determined that the ICO’s decision notice was wrong in law and therefore the tribunal’s decision stood in substitution for the ICO decision notice

 Craven District Council has been successful in contesting one ICO decision notice.

6.144 The Commission noted that the number of decision notices issued by the ICO for HBC was extremely low in comparison with other similar authorities. It considered that the number of decision notices should be included as part of the quarterly performance report so that any increases could be monitored.

Recommendation (15):

The number of decision notices received from the ICO should be included as part of the quarterly performance report

7.0 Conclusions

7.1 The Commission would like to thank everyone who contributed throughout the process in particular, Rich Kemp, Legal Assistant (Debt and Information Law), Bernice Elgot, Chief Solicitor, Dave Clothier, Information and Systems Manager and David Roper- Newman, Information Governance Manager from Craven District Council. The

Page 123 39 | P a g e

Commission recognised that the time and effort given to support its work and the timely responses to additional requests is reflected in the outcomes of the review process and final report.

Page 124 40 | P a g e

8.0 Bibliography

‘Data Transparency’ https://www.harrogate.gov.uk/info/20135/data_protection_and_freedom_of_informatio n/381/data_transparency

‘Freedom of Information Act 2000’ https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/36/contents

‘Freedom of Information Code of Practice’ – July 2018 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachm ent_data/file/722165/FOI-Code-of-Practice-July-2018.pdf

‘Guide to Freedom of Information’ pg. 5 https://ico.org.uk/media/for- organisations/guide-to-freedom-of-information-4-9.pdf

‘How to access information from a public body’ https://ico.org.uk/your-data- matters/official-information/

‘ICO Decision Notices’- https://icosearch.ico.org.uk/s/search.html?collection=ico- meta&profile=decisions&query

‘ICO Decision Notices – Harrogate Borough Council’ https://icosearch.ico.org.uk/s/search.html?collection=ico- meta&profile=decisions&query&query=&f.By+authority|publicAuthority=Harrogate Borough Council

‘ICO Requests for Information Review Procedure’ https://ico.org.uk/media/about-the- ico/policies-and-procedures/1883/ico-review-procedure.pdf

‘Mid-Sussex District Council Freedom of Information Pages’ https://www.midsussex.gov.uk/about-us/freedom-of-information/

‘Model Publication Scheme’ https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-freedom-of- information/publication-scheme/

‘Monitoring compliance’ - https://ico.org.uk/action-weve-taken/monitoring-compliance/

‘Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs’ Code of Practice on the discharge of public authorities’ functions under Part 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, Issued under section 45 of the Act’ - https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachm ent_data/file/235286/0033.pdf

‘Time limits for compliance’ https://ico.org.uk/media/1622/time-for-compliance-eir- guidance.pdf

‘What happens when someone complains’ https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide- to-freedom-of-information/complaints/

‘What is the FOI Act’ https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-freedom-of- information/what-is-the-foi-act/

‘What should we do when we receive a request for information?’ https://ico.org.uk/for- organisations/guide-to-freedom-of-information/receiving-a-request/ Page 125 41 | P a g e

‘When can we refuse a request for information’ https://ico.org.uk/for- organisations/guide-to-freedom-of-information/refusing-a-request/

Page 126 42 | P a g e

Appendix A

DRAFT SCOPE

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION SCOPE

To ensure that an Overview and Scrutiny Review is properly planned and managed, it is important that a comprehensive project management approach is taken. This form should be completed at the beginning of a review and updated regularly to reflect the progress of the review.

Notes Information Date for completion 1. Definition of topic Define in as much detail for investigation as possible, specifying Review definition: areas and issues,

Page 127 Page avoiding generalisations ‘Review of the operation of the Freedom of Information (FOI) Scheme including or overly broad scope. the Internal Review process’

This item was requested by a member of the public and put forward for consideration at the annual prioritisation workshop where it was agreed to be of medium priority. 2. Aims/objectives As above, these should of review be clearly defined. • How FOI requests are handled

• What is the policy? • How are requests received? • Who is responsible for responding?

• Analysis of the numbers of requests received:

• Number received • Numbers refused • Reasons for refusal • Numbers unanswered/partial response and reasons

• Timescales for response:

• What are the target/set timescales? • How does the council perform?

• General

• What are the reasons for making FOI requests? • Are there any mechanisms to request information other than FOI requests? • Ensuring consistency across the Council

Page 128 Page • How are internal reviews undertaken?

• What is the policy/process? • Who undertakes them? • Could there be potential conflicts of interest? • Where are they reported?

3. Preliminary • Freedom of Information Act 2000 research • The Council’s Freedom of Information Policy • Information Commissioner’s Office publications for best practice • Local Government Transparency Code 2015 4. What scrutiny e.g. formal panel, full methods will be Commission Full Commission investigation across several meetings, as appropriate. used? investigation, working group, action to be taken by one/two individuals 5. Which Council e.g. who can provide services, members further evidence to • Legal and Governance Team and external progress review agencies will be involved? 6. How will the e.g. consultative forums, TBC public and other local committees, local stakeholders be ward mechanisms involved? 7. Will any diverse For example – diverse TBC groups be ethnic groups, hard to consulted? reach groups, faith

groups, people with physical/mental impairments

8. How will issue be e.g. questioning/expert - Consultation and review of current Council policies and procedures scrutinised? witnesses, site visits, during full Commission public forum, formal - Review of other local authorities processes and procedures in relation to

Page 129 Page consultation FOI policies and internal reviews What areas of research - Performance benchmarking in comparison to other comparably sized will be undertaken Councils (e.g. number of requests received, response times) - Examples of Freedom of Information requests received – was this information already in the public domain? - Analysis of the Council’s performance in the past year, and service performance

9. Estimated start Deadlines should be TBC date, key stages realistic and considered and final report as part of overall work programme 10. Evaluation and To be considered as follow up to review progresses. recommendations

Appendix B

OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMISSION HELD ON 21 NOVEMBER 2017 (FROM 5.30 PM TO 7.32 PM)

PRESENT: Councillor David Goode in the Chair. Councillors Bernard Bateman, Philip Broadbank, Nick Brown, Ian Galloway, John Mann, Pat Marsh, Stuart Martin, Tim Myatt, Bob O’Neill, Alan Skidmore and Cliff Trotter.

In attendance: Councillor Mike Chambers, Cabinet Member for Housing and Safer Communities

Late Arrivals: None

Early Departures: Councillor Nick Brown at 7.15 pm Councillor John Mann at 7.16 pm Councillor Cliff Trotter at 7.16 pm

51/17 – APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND NOTIFICATION OF SUBSTITUTES: Apologies for absence had been received from Councillor Nathan Hull and Councillor Pauline McHardy. (5.30 pm)

52/17 – DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST: There were no declarations of interest.

(5.30 pm)

53/17 – MINUTES: The Minutes of the meeting of 30 October 2017 were approved unanimously as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

(5.31 pm)

54/17 – EXEMPT INFORMATION: There were no exempt information items.

(5.32 pm)

55/17 – PUBLIC ARRANGEMENTS – QUESTIONS: There were no questions to consider under Standing Order 27.

(5.32 pm)

SCRUTINY MATTERS AND REVIEWS UNDERTAKEN BY THE COMMISSION

56/17 – DISASTER CAPABILITY MANAGEMENT: The Chair welcomed Ian Speirs, Emergency Planning Manager (EPM), Caitlin James, Emergency Planning Officer and Dean Richardson, Head of Safer Communities. The Chair also welcomed Councillor Mike Chambers, the Cabinet Member for Housing and Safer Communities, Alex Sutcliffe, Major Incident Response Team Manager (MIRT Manager) and Phil Whild, Group Manager (GM) from North Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Service (NYFRS). The EPM provided a verbal presentation and highlighted

Page 130 OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMISSION

a number of major incidents/disasters in the area that had occurred over a number of years. This included major fires, the Ripon sinkholes and localised flooding. The EPM explained that the presentation aimed to reassure the public and Members that the council was adequately prepared and resourced to respond effectively in the event of a disaster.

The GM then provided an overview of fire safety and risk management in the Harrogate district. The GM sought to provide reassurance to members of the public across Harrogate and North Yorkshire that following the Grenfell fire a significant number of actions had been taken. This included a survey of buildings across the Harrogate district that had six floors or more, which totalled 14 buildings. This survey showed that cladding was not in place on any of these buildings and also provided the opportunity for fire crews to re-familiarise themselves with building lay-outs for access and water supply purposes and to make contact with residents. The GM also advised that the NYFRS had been consulted on a number of new buildings to ensure fire safety, such as access for fire engines. NYFRS also conducted visits to buildings to fit fire alarms and provide advice to residents. In terms of council owned properties, very minor issues were raised and members of the public were aware of the procedures in the event of a fire. The GM highlighted the on-going national review of fire safety in high rise buildings and the potential legislation changes this may bring which would be monitored. In response to a question from Councillor Pat Marsh on the use of the “stay-put” policy, the GM advised that he could not comment on the policy in particular buildings as the evacuation policy in place depends on the type of building, the fire protection/containment in place and agreed fire safety procedures/plans. He commented that these may include “stay put” policies as some buildings were designed with fire protection to support such a policy, for example smaller self-contained areas with 60 minutes fire proofing.

The EPM then provided an overview of the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 and the responsibilities of the council as a category one responder, which included assessing risks, having emergency plans in place, business continuity arrangements, sharing information and working effectively with partners including the North Yorkshire Local Resilience Forum (NYLRF). The EPM highlighted the national risk register of civil emergencies, which showed that pandemic flu and terrorist attacks were considered the highest risk. In December 2017, the council will be undertaking a multi-agency exercise to understand roles and responsibilities in the unlikely event of a terrorist attack. A table top exercise had already taken place in partnership with the police, and barriers had been used at the Christmas markets, in line with learning from previous terrorist incidents.

At a local level, there was a community risk register in place across North Yorkshire and a local/borough risk register. Flooding and land movements were considered high risk in terms of impact and likelihood for the Harrogate District. There were national plans in place such as fuel, heat and cold plans to deal with changes in temperature. Regionally, Local Resilience Forums had established well-developed systems to share information, such as emergency plans, contact directory and communications. The NYLRF had plans in place to deal with issues across North Yorkshire and locally there were a number of plans in place, including the town centre evacuation plan, the council’s recovery plans and business continuity plans. The council’s recovery plan was based on lessons learnt and details the structure in

Page 131 OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMISSION

place so that services were aware of responsibilities and to ensure the continuing day to day running of the council.

The EPM provided an overview of the council’s response arrangements. This included an on-call duty emergency planning officer 24/7, provided on a rota basis by three trained staff and there were procedures in place to escalate issues if required. The duty emergency team act as the initial point of contact in an emergency situation. Any additional support was provided on a volunteer basis by prior agreement and was used predominantly in flooding situations particularly to distribute sandbags. The volunteers were also trained in water awareness (allowing them to distribute sandbags through water), first aid trained, Project Griffin trained (counter terrorism) and Incident Command and Control aware. There was a common approach amongst all emergency response partners, ‘Response to Major & Critical Incidents’ that allows the council and partners to communicate and share information in the event of an incident with serious public or community impact. Information that is shared was based on the ‘METHANE’ method of developing situational awareness. This was all part of the ‘Joint Emergency Services Interoperability Programme (JESIP). The council’s Command and Control response structure to a major incident or emergency is based on the Gold (Strategic), Silver (Tactical) and Bronze (Operational) and has trained staff which enables the council to respond appropriately in the event of a disaster. These arrangements were also supported by the media and communications team, structural engineers and homeless team, as required. Other resources held by the council include sand bags, strategic stores of camp beds and sleeping bags, generators and the use of Claro Road Depot as emergency planning rooms (as used in Tour de Yorkshire 2017).

The MIRT Manager, based at North Yorkshire County Council (NYCC), explained the procedures of multi-agency working in the event of a disaster. This involved working with local authorities to set up and manage rest centres, with 86 identified locations for small scale temporary sites in the Harrogate district, if required. The MIRT Manager explained that there are 40 volunteers in place to support people through traumatic incidents by looking after their practical and emotional needs for up to three days, working in partnership with housing services. This involved moving people to rest centres, addressing medical needs, moving homes and emotional support. The MIRT Manager highlighted the concern around spontaneous volunteers (these are people who want to help in the event of an incident) and how they can be managed, supported and have a designated role whilst mitigating risks.

The EPM explained how the council warns and informs the public in the event of a disaster, which included the NYLRF media and communications plan, the use of local media, a text messaging system and letter drops. In terms of keeping staff up to date, there was an employee emergency hotline, text alert system and the use of social media. Staff members who were gold or silver command trained also received media training. The council also worked closely with the blue light services to agree and manage any statements made to the public to ensure accuracy, consistency and timeliness.

The EPM explained the Community Emergency Plans that were in place in the district, which included 25 community plans predominantly established by working with Parish Councils. The EPM highlighted that it was not only important that plans

Page 132 OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMISSION

were in place but also kept up to date with the latest information. The EPM highlighted that the council was willing to support Parishes or community groups who need support developing or updating plans and that he would encourage all areas to develop them. In response to a question from Councillor Pat Marsh on the lack of a Harrogate town emergency plan, the EPM explained that the town centre does have an evacuation plan in place, a risk based approach plan was developed by the Police which covered suburban Harrogate and the council would be willing to develop emergency plans with community groups. Members of the Commission expressed support for being part of any work to develop plans for Harrogate town. In response to a further question from Councillor Pat Marsh on RAF Menwith Hill emergency plans, the EPM advised that they have their own Emergency Planner who worked closely with neighbouring parishes and other partners. In response to a question from Councillor Bernard Bateman on industrial chemical sites, the EPM advised that these were managed by NYCC and that the emergency plan was well developed and practiced every two/three years and it was agreed to invite the Parish Council to the next exercise.

In response to a question from Councillor David Goode on whether the council was confident it had adequate resources to deal with a major disaster, particularly during out of hours, the EPM advised that three duty officers was sufficient, and also included the support of gold/silver trained staff and volunteers allowing for a 24/7 response. Councillor Stuart Martin referred to the recent sinkholes in Ripon and sought to express his support and praise for the emergency planning team at the council.

The Chair then summarised the discussions and made the following comments:

• Members were willing to attend a training session on Members involvement in the event of a disaster • Feedback on the draft Major Incident Management Guidance for Members was welcome • Local community groups are welcome to become involved in the development of Harrogate emergency plans and the Commission agreed to support this • Importance of communicating with Members earlier on in the process of a major incident

The Chair of the Commission thanked all for their attendance and responses to questions. The Commission agreed unanimously that the council had adequate arrangements in place to support the emergency planning function, its ability to respond and manage disasters and the importance of ensuring that the funding of this service continues.

(5.32 pm – 7.15 pm)

57/17 – OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMISSION FUTURE WORK PROGRAMME: The Scrutiny, Governance and Risk Manager submitted a written report presenting the current draft Work Programme for the Commission, a draft scope for the review of Freedom of Information Policies/Procedures and an update on the progress of the Broadband in the Harrogate District and Planning Performance/Policy items.

Page 133 OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMISSION

The Chair referred to a report circulated previously by the Scrutiny Officer summarising the information received to date on Broadband in the Harrogate district, and as no further questions/comments had been raised, it was agreed that the review of this item was complete. The Chair then referred to the review of Planning Performance/Policy that was undertaken by the Cabinet Member for Planning which had resulted in a number of actions being taken to improve communications with Members and Officers, and it was agreed that a further review by Overview and Scrutiny Commission was no longer required.

The Chair invited Members of the Commission to put forward representatives for a cross-party group to look at the vision for the Culture, Tourism and Sport service, and it was agreed Councillors Tim Myatt and Philip Broadbank would attend on behalf of the Commission.

Members considered the draft scope for Freedom of Information Policies/Procedures and it was agreed that the review would commence in early 2018.

(7.15 pm – 7.28 pm)

MATTERS HOLDING THE EXECUTIVE/PARTNERS TO ACCOUNT

58/17 – FORWARD PLAN OF KEY DECISIONS: Members considered the latest Forward Plan of key decisions.

(7.28 pm – 7.32 pm)

Page 134 Appendix C

Freedom of Information

Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA):

Page 135 Page (1)Any person making a request for information to a public authority is entitled— (a)to be informed in writing by the public authority whether it holds information of the description specified in the request, and (b)if that is the case, to have that information communicated to him.

Environmental Information Regulations - Reg 5 • 5.—(1) Subject to paragraph (3) and in accordance with paragraphs (2), (4), (5) and (6) and the remaining provisions of this Part and Part 3 of these Regulations,

Page 136 Page a public authority that holds environmental information shall make it available on request. • (2) Information shall be made available under paragraph (1) as soon as possible and no later than 20 working days after the date of receipt of the request. • (3) To the extent that the information requested includes personal data of which the applicant is the data subject, paragraph (1) shall not apply to those personal data.

Policy • No specific policy • The FOIA provides the mechanisms for dealing with an FOI request • A code of practice is provided under section 45 of

Page 137 Page the FOIA • The Information Commissioner’s Office (‘ICO’) is the regulatory body. They produce significant amounts of guidance for authorities on how to deal with requests and how/when exemptions should be engaged. • The ICO also publishes it’s Decision Notices (its decision following complaint) HBC procedure

• A guidance document is available on the Hub • A compulsory Mylo course for all staff Request is received

Page 138 Page • • Request is logged on corporate log • Request is forwarded to relevant departmental rep. • Request further forwarded to relevant officers as appropriate • Discussion with relevant officers where it is felt an exemption should be considered • Response formulated and sent • Response date logged on central FOI log

Section 8 of FOIA

• 8 Request for information • (1)In this Act any reference to a “request for information” is a reference to such a request which— • (a)is in writing, Page 139 Page • (b)states the name of the applicant and an address for correspondence, and • (c)describes the information requested. • (2)For the purposes of subsection (1)(a), a request is to be treated as made in writing where the text of the request— • (a)is transmitted by electronic means, • (b)is received in legible form, and • (c)is capable of being used for subsequent reference.

Requests received at HBC

• Via email – dedicated email account – [email protected] Page 140 Page • Via letter • Via specific webform (which generates an email to the foi inbox) • FOI requests can be received by any officer of the council, provided they comply with section 1 they are valid requests Responsibility for responding

• Legal Assistant (Debt & Information Law) oversees and co-ordinates the FOI process. • There are departmental representatives who Page 141 Page co-ordinate the logging, acknowledging and responding to requests on behalf of their departments. • Once received by the dept. rep. a request may be forwarded on to a more relevant officer in that dept.

Requests received

• 2017/18: 745 up to 08/02/2018 • 2016/17: 824 Page 142 Page • 2015/16: 686 • 2014/15: 736 • 2013/14: 697 Requests refused*

• 2017/18: 51 of 745 (7%) • 2016/17: 35 of 824 (4%) • 2015/16: 43 of 686 (6%) Page 143 Page • 2014/15: 51 of 736 (7%) • 2013/14: 31 of 697 (4%)

• *Some requests are partially refused. Others are refused either because the information is not held by HBC (usually redirected to NYCC) or because the information is already published. Reasons for refusal

• The exemptions that can be considered are provided in Part II of the Act. • The more frequently engaged exemptions are: Page 144 Page – Section 12 - Exemption where cost of compliance exceeds appropriate limit (£450 = 18 hours @ £25p/h) – Section 21 - Information accessible to applicant by other means (not a refusal in practice, the applicant is directed to where they can find the information) – Section 22 - Information intended for future publication – Section 40 - Personal information – Section 41 - Information provided in confidence – Section 42 - Legal professional privilege – Section 43 - Commercial interests Timescale for responding

• Section 10 of the Act: “promptly and in any event not later than the twentieth working day following the date of receipt”.

Page 145 Page • HBC compliance (% responded within 20 working days – ICO may monitor if under 90%): – 2017/18: 92% up to 17/01/2018 – 2016/17: 96% – 2015/16: 96% – 2014/15: 94% – 2013/14: 96%

Internal Reviews

• Section 17(7) states a refusal notice must: “contain particulars of any procedure provided by the public authority for dealing with complaints about the Page 146 Page handling of requests for information or state that the authority does not provide such a procedure” • Every response issued by HBC gives details of how to request an internal review and details of the applicant’s on-going rights with respect to further complaint to ICO (such rights provided by section 50 of the Act) • The section 45 code of practice contains some direction as to conducting internal reviews.

HBC Internal Review procedure

• Upon receipt of a request for internal review a case management file is opened and all the relevant information as to how the request was handled imported to that file. • The file is passed to the Chief Solicitor to arrange the internal review. Page 147 Page • The Chief Solicitor arranges a meeting with a senior officer who was not involved in the original request, and where possible the senior officer is chosen from a council dept that is unrelated to the subject matter of the request. • Senior officers are selected from Directors and Heads of Service. • The chosen senior officer reviews the request, the response and the way it was handled, in conjunction with the Chief Solicitor who gives advice on the requirements of the law. • An internal review response is issued within 20 working days.

No. of internal reviews

• 2017/18: 12 up to 08/02/2018 • 2016/17: 8 Page 148 Page • 2015/16: 4 • 2014/15: 1 • 2013/14: 0 Internal review outcomes

• 2017/18: SOR x 10, ADM x 2 • 2016/17: SOR x 5, ADM x 3

Page 149 Page • 2015/16: SOR x 0 ADM x 4 • 2014/15: SOR x 1 ADM x 0 • 2013/14: n/a

SOR – Supported original response ADM – Additional disclosures made Subsequent referrals to ICO

• 2017/18: 0 • 2016/17: 2 Page 150 Page • 2015/16: 0 • 2014/15: 0 • 2013/14: 0

ICO referrals

ICO lo

Section 45 - Code of Practice – request handling

Freedom of Information Act

Contents

Introduction ...... 2 Overview ...... 2 Status of the code ...... 3 What FOIA says ...... 3 What the code says ...... 4 General advice to public authorities ...... 5 Provision of advice and assistance ...... 5 Advice and assistance to those proposing to make requests ...... 6 Conditional requests ...... 7 Clarification of the request ...... 7 Limits to advice and assistance ...... 9 Advice and assistance and fees ...... 9 Advice and assistance and vexatious requests ...... 10 Transferring requests for information ...... 10 Consultation with third parties ...... 11 Freedom of information and confidentiality ...... 12 Complaints procedure ...... 13 Practical benefits of conforming to the code ...... 14 Consequences of not conforming to the code ...... 15 More information ...... 16

[Code of Practice] (section 45) 20160603 Version: 1.1 Page 151

Introduction

1. The Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) gives rights of public access to information held by public authorities.

2. An overview of the main provisions of FOIA can be found in the Guide to freedom of information.

3. This is part of a series of guidance, which goes into more detail than the Guide, to help public authorities to fully understand their obligations and promote good practice.

4. This guidance explains to public authorities how the section 45 Code of Practice can help them handle requests for information

Overview

The section 45 Code of Practice (the code) fulfils the duty of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster set out in section 45 of FOIA.

The code provides guidance on the practice it would be desirable for public authorities to follow to meet their obligations under FOIA.

Adhering to the code will result in positive benefits for an authority, and in practical terms offer good customer service.

This guidance clarifies:

 the status of the code;

 the practical benefits of conforming to the code; and

 the consequences of not conforming to the code.

5. Section 47 of FOIA places a duty on the Information Commissioner to promote the following of good practice by public authorities and the observance, by them, of FOIA and codes of practice.

6. The code provides guidance on how to deal with requests for information. It should be used as a handbook to help public authorities with the day to day handling of requests.

2 [Code of Practice] (section 45) 20160603 Version: 1.1 Page 152

Status of the code

7. The code is derived from the legislation itself. Section 45 of FOIA requires the production of a code of practice providing guidance to public authorities.

What FOIA says

8. Section 45 of FOIA states:

45. (1) The Chancellor of the Duchy shall issue, and may from time to time revise, a code of practice providing guidance to public authorities as to the practice which it would, in his opinion, be desirable for them to follow in connection with the discharge of the authorities’ functions under Part I.

(2)The code of practice must, in particular, include provision relating to— (a) the provision of advice and assistance by public authorities to persons who propose to make, or have made, requests for information to them, (b) the transfer of requests by one public authority to another public authority by which the information requested is or may be held, (c) consultation with persons to whom the information requested relates or persons whose interests are likely to be affected by the disclosure of information, (d) the inclusion in contracts entered into by public authorities of terms relating to the disclosure of information, (da) the disclosure by public authorities of datasets held by them, and (e) the provision by public authorities of procedures for dealing with complaints about the handling by them of requests for information.

(2A) Provision of the kind mentioned in subsection (2)(da) may, in particular, include provision relating to— (a) the giving of permission for datasets to be re-used, (b) the disclosure of datasets in an electronic form which is capable of re-use, (c) the making of datasets available for re-use in accordance with the terms of a licence, (d) other matters relating to the making of datasets 3 [Code of Practice] (section 45) 20160603 Version: 1.1 Page 153

available for re-use, (e) standards applicable to public authorities in connection with the disclosure of datasets.

(3) Any code under this section may make different provision for different public authorities.

(4) Before issuing or revising any code under this section, the Chancellor of the Duchy shall consult the Commissioner.

(5) The Chancellor of the Duchy shall lay before each House of Parliament any code or revised code made under this section.

9. The government has issued an additional Code of Practice (datasets code) under section 45 of FOIA, dealing specifically with datasets. This supplements the main code; it does not replace it. Public authorities should consult the new datasets code, as well as our datasets guidance, in order to understand their duties under the dataset provisions.

10. Prior to the coming into force of the Transfer of Functions (Information and Public Records) Order 2015 the section 45 Code of Practice was issued by the Secretary of State.

What the code says

11. The code provides practical advice for public authorities on dealing with requests for information and covers the following areas:

 Advice and assistance

 Fees

 Transferring requests

 Consultation with third parties

 Confidentiality obligations

 Complaints procedures

4 [Code of Practice] (section 45) 20160603 Version: 1.1 Page 154

General advice to public authorities

12. The code provides guidance to help public authorities meet their obligations under Part 1 of FOIA, the main features of which are:

 General rights of access to information subject to certain conditions and exemptions;

 A duty to provide reasons for any refusal in cases where access to information is withheld in reliance upon an exemption from disclosure;

 A duty to provide reasonable advice and assistance to applicants;

 A duty to adopt and maintain a publication scheme, approved by the Information Commissioner.

13. Any written communications to a public authority, including those sent electronically, could be a request for information under FOIA.

14. In many cases requests may be dealt with in the normal course of business. Nevertheless it is important for a public authority to ensure that appropriate training is provided to staff so they can recognise a request under FOIA and consider any relevant codes of practice and guidance.

15. In larger public authorities there should be a central pool of staff with freedom of information expertise to provide advice to other staff members as required.

16. A public authority should also be aware of how other legislation such as the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 and the Data Protection Act 1998 may affect the disclosure of information.

Provision of advice and assistance

17. Part II of the code provides guidance to public authorities on the recommended practice to follow in discharge of their duties under section 16 of FOIA.

5 [Code of Practice] (section 45) 20160603 Version: 1.1 Page 155

18. Section 16 of FOIA says:

16.—(1) It shall be the duty of a public authority to provide advice and assistance, so far as it would be reasonable to expect the authority to do so, to persons who propose to make, or have made, requests for information to it.

(2) Any public authority which, in relation to the provision of advice or assistance in any case, conforms with the code of practice under section 45 is to be taken to comply with the duty imposed by subsection (1) in relation to that case.

19. Where a public authority has complied with the code’s recommendations on the provision of advice and assistance it will be considered to have met its section 16 obligations. Although a public authority may choose to go beyond the requirements of the code it does not need to in order to comply with section 16.

20. Although failure to comply with the code will not necessarily result in a breach of section 16, the code encourages a public authority to follow it to reduce the risk of this happening.

Advice and assistance to those proposing to make requests

21. Paragraphs 4 to 7 of the code deal with advice and assistance to those proposing to make requests.

22. A public authority’s publication scheme should explain how it deals with requests for information. It should provide contact details to make it easier for applicants to submit requests or seek assistance.

23. The general public may not be aware of FOIA and a public authority’s staff should remember this when dealing with potential applicants. They should use language appropriate for the requester and ensure that they provide any advice in a clear and intelligible format.

24. This would include drawing certain provisions of FOIA to the attention of potential applicants who appear unaware of them.

6 [Code of Practice] (section 45) 20160603 Version: 1.1 Page 156

25. The code says that ‘where a person is unable to frame his or her request in writing,’……………‘appropriate assistance is given to enable that person to make a request for information.’

26. The code provides some suggestions on how to offer ‘assistance’ however it is up to the public authority to decide on the best way of providing such assistance based on the circumstances in question.

27. More information and examples are provided in our guidance on the duty to provide advice and assistance.

Conditional requests

28. A conditional request is a request made on the basis of either:

 some future event taking place; or

 the status quo remaining the same.

This type of request is covered in more detail in our guidance on recognising a request.

29. In these circumstances, and in order to conform with the code, the public authority will need to advise the potential requester:

 that they can make a request under FOIA which must then be answered within 20 working days;

 to submit a request now and receive a response within that timeframe (even if the response is that no information is held yet); or

 to submit a request at a later date, after the anticipated event takes place.

A failure to do so will be a breach of section 16.

30. The provision of advice and assistance should not normally affect the 20 day timescale for compliance unless the public authority is unable to identify the information sought without further clarification.

Clarification of the request

31. Paragraphs 8 to 11 of the code deal with ‘clarifying the request’ and relate specifically to when a public authority needs more

7 [Code of Practice] (section 45) 20160603 Version: 1.1 Page 157

information to identify and locate the information a requester is looking for.

32. A public authority is entitled to ask for more detail if needed and in this case should assist applicants in clarifying the information requested.

33. The code does not require a public authority to assist applicants in describing the information more clearly if it can deal with the request as it has been presented.

34. If a public authority can objectively read an information request in more than one way it may need further information in order to identify the information requested. Section 16 requires a public authority to assist the applicant to clarify the request under these circumstances.

35. The code provides some examples of what might represent appropriate assistance in cases where more information is needed to clarify a request. These examples are not exhaustive however and a public authority needs to be flexible in its approach.

36. If a public authority is only aware of one objective reading of a request then no section 16 duty arises.

37. If it is later found that the request can be objectively read in more than one way there will be a breach of section 1 of FOIA because the information has not been provided to the requester’s intended alternative reading of the request.

38. The code says that ‘it is important that the applicant is contacted as soon as possible, preferably by telephone, fax or e-mail where more information is needed to clarify what is sought.’

39. If a public authority is able to identify the information requested without requiring any further clarification, there is no need to contact the applicant and volunteer, for example, access to indexes or details of other related information that it holds. The code does not require the public authority to contact the applicant to discuss their request with them and check that they have actually asked for what they want.

Example

The Information Tribunal (IT) in Berend v The Information

8 [Code of Practice] (section 45) 20160603 Version: 1.1 Page 158

Commissioner and London Borough of Richmond upon Thames (LBRT) (EA2006/0049 & 0050 12 July 2007) confirmed that “the only obligation to initiate contact with the applicant under the Section 45 Code relates to the situation that arises where the request requires clarification” and accepted that in the circumstances of this particular case “the request appeared plain when read objectively by the public authority …….consequently there was no requirement for LBRT to seek a second meaning or ask for clarification”

However although the Tribunal was satisfied that the public authority’s objective reading of the request meant that no section 16 duty arose, it did find that the request could be objectively read in two ways, which gave rise to a section 1 breach.

40. Our guidance on interpreting and clarifying requests provides further information on what a public authority should consider when interpreting a request, and when it should ask the requester for clarification.

Limits to advice and assistance

41. Paragraph 12 says that if a public authority has provided appropriate assistance to an applicant, but the applicant still fails to adequately describe the information sought, the public authority is not obliged to seek further clarification.

42. The public authority should disclose any information it has been able to identify and find which is not subject to any exemption.

43. The public authority should explain to the applicant why it is unable to progress the request further and provide details of its complaints procedure and the right to complain to the Information Commissioner under section 50 of FOIA.

Advice and assistance and fees

44. Paragraphs 13 to 14 of the code address the issue of costs and the factors a public authority should consider in circumstances where:

9 [Code of Practice] (section 45) 20160603 Version: 1.1 Page 159

 the applicant is not prepared to pay the fee specified in any fees notice; or  the cost of complying with the request would exceed the ‘appropriate limit’ as covered in section 12 of FOIA.

45. The Commissioner has published guidance on fees that may be charged when the cost of compliance does not exceed the appropriate limit and requests where the cost of compliance with a request exceeds the appropriate limit.

Advice and assistance and vexatious requests

46. Paragraph 15 states that ‘an authority is not expected to provide assistance to applicants whose requests are vexatious within the meaning of section 14 of FOIA’.

47. If a public authority considers that a request is vexatious because it is wide and unfocused, it may be appropriate to offer advice and assistance to help the requester to reformulate their request, although we do not consider it is under any obligation to do so.

48. Our published guidance on dealing with vexatious requests covers this area in more detail.

Transferring requests for information

49. Part III of the code covers circumstances where a public authority receives a request for information that it does not hold, but believes is available from another authority. This is not covered in FOIA.

50. The first public authority should contact the second to verify:

 whether it does hold the information in question; and if so,

 whether the second authority is obliged to confirm the information is held under section 1(1) of FOIA.

51. If this is the case then the public authority should consider the best way of assisting the applicant with their request.

52. This is likely to involve either transferring the request to the other authority, or advising the applicant to re-direct their

10 [Code of Practice] (section 45) 20160603 Version: 1.1 Page 160

request. Paragraphs 18 to 20 of the code provide more detail around the procedures to be followed for each option.

53. A public authority should consider whether there is any other practical advice it can offer the applicant if it does not hold the information but is unable to:

 provide details of any other public authority that may hold the information requested; or  transfer the request to another public authority.

54. However the public authority decides to deal with this kind of request, it should make sure that it informs the applicant in writing within the 20 working day timeframe:

 that it does not hold the information; and

 what action it has taken.

55. If the public authority thinks that the requester is likely to object, it should obtain appropriate consent before transferring the request to another authority. It may be preferable to advise the applicant to make a new request to the second authority.

56. The authority receiving the request should treat the day of transfer as the date of receipt when calculating the timescale for complying with the request.

57. Our guidance on time limits for compliance under the FOIA gives more information on this aspect of request handling.

Consultation with third parties

58. Part IV of the code deals with consultation with third parties.

59. A request for information or the disclosure of information will often involve persons other than the applicant and the authority.

60. The public authority should ensure that any third parties, including those who supply public authorities with information, are made aware of the public authority’s duties under FOIA and that it must release information upon request unless an exemption applies.

61. The statutory duty to release information, even if it was originally provided by a third party, lies with the public

11 [Code of Practice] (section 45) 20160603 Version: 1.1 Page 161

authority. Although the third party may refuse consent to release this information, any refusal would not be binding on the public authority.

62. In some cases the duty to consult with third parties will only arise once a request has been received.

63. A public authority should ask third parties whether they hold further relevant material or have any other useful advice for the applicant about the information requested.

64. It is good practice for a public authority to give advance notice to third parties that it is proposing to disclose information which may affect or relate to them, where it is reasonable to do so. If that is not possible, then it should take steps to make them aware of it as soon as possible after the event.

65. An authority should not consider releasing information provided by one government department to another, until it has consulted the department where the information originated.

Freedom of information and confidentiality

66. Part V of the code deals with freedom of information and confidentiality obligations.

67. It is common for contracts involving non-public authority contractors to contain confidentiality clauses, restricting the disclosure of the contract terms, value and performance details. However, FOIA places limits on the enforceability of these clauses.

68. A public authority cannot contract out its obligations under FOIA and will therefore need to consider how any confidentiality clauses may interact with its FOI responsibilities.

69. When a public authority enters into a contract, it should let the other party know before the contract is drawn up that part or all of the contract may need to be disclosed if a request under FOIA is received.

70. A public authority can use confidentiality clauses to identify information that may be exempt; however it must consider whether these clauses are compatible with its FOIA obligations.

71. Clauses may specify the circumstances where the other party to a contract should be consulted before disclosure. Such 12 [Code of Practice] (section 45) 20160603 Version: 1.1 Page 162

clauses cannot, however, prevent disclosure under FOIA if the information is not strictly speaking confidential.

72. Confidentiality considerations may also apply in non- contractual circumstances, where for example third party organisations have provided certain information to public authorities on an expressly confidential basis.

73. Just because information has been provided in confidence it does not necessarily follow that it will be exempt from disclosure under section 41 of FOIA.

74. A public authority will need to consider whether any release of information could result in an actionable breach of confidence and seek appropriate legal advice as necessary.

75. Detailed guidance on information provided in confidence (section 41) and outsourcing and freedom of information is available on our website www.ico.org.uk.

Complaints procedure

76. Part VI of the code provides advice on how public authorities should deal with complaints relating to request handling.

77. Any written correspondence where the applicant says they are unhappy with a public authority’s response to an information request, or any communication which indicates that the authority is not meeting its obligations as set out within its publication scheme should be treated as a complaint.

78. A public authority should establish complaint handling procedures with set target times for resolution. These procedures should be publicised and covered in the public authority’s publication scheme.

79. Complaints handling procedures should be clear and easy to follow. Any complaint received should be acknowledged promptly with timescales given for resolving the issue.

80. The code covers the additional information a public authority should include when refusing a request. Our guidance on refusing a request – writing a refusal notice provides further advice on this aspect.

81. Section 17(7) of FOIA requires public authorities to give applicants details of their complaints procedure, including how 13 [Code of Practice] (section 45) 20160603 Version: 1.1 Page 163

to make a complaint and the right to complain to the Information Commissioner’s Office under section 50 of FOIA if they remain dissatisfied with the outcome of any internal review.

82. Paragraphs 39 to 41 cover the internal review process and stress the importance of keeping the applicant informed at all stages on:

 the progress of the complaint; and

 the likely timescale for completion.

83. If an internal review results in the disclosure of information which was previously withheld, the public authority should inform the applicant of the outcome as soon as possible and tell them when they are likely to receive the information.

84. In any event an internal review should take no longer than 20 working days in most cases, or 40 in exceptional circumstances.

85. If an internal review results in a public authority upholding the original decision (that, as at the date of the request, the information was exempt from disclosure) it may be appropriate to release further information if circumstances have changed and the original concerns about disclosure no longer apply.

86. There is no obligation on a public authority to do so but it may resolve matters for the applicant and reduce the likelihood of them making a complaint if you do.

87. A public authority should maintain records of complaints including details of the outcome and the timescales involved.

88. A public authority should review these records and its complaints handling procedures on a regular basis so that any weaknesses can be identified and improvements made where necessary. In cases where the authority has not followed the correct procedures, it is good practice to make a formal apology to the applicant and take remedial measures to ensure that this does not re-occur.

Practical benefits of conforming to the code

89. Adhering to the code should result in positive benefits for an authority, and will help it to provide good customer service. 14 [Code of Practice] (section 45) 20160603 Version: 1.1 Page 164

90. Benefits include:

 reduced likelihood of breaching the FOIA;

 increased customer satisfaction;

 improved public perception of an organisation;

 quicker turnaround of FOIA requests;

 more streamlined procedures;

 a saving of staff time; and

 potentially less resource spent on dealing with complaints to the ICO.

91. These benefits are interlinked, and a public authority will obtain most benefit by adhering to all aspects of the code.

Consequences of not conforming to the code

92. The Commissioner can take account of whether the code has been observed when considering complaints.

93. If the Commissioner needs more information, he can serve an information notice before deciding whether or not a public authority’s practice conforms to the code.

94. The Commissioner has the power to issue a practice recommendation under section 48 of FOIA if he considers that a public authority is not conforming to the code. This will include steps he thinks the organisation should follow in order to meet the code’s requirements.

95. The practice recommendation would indicate which provisions of the code had not been met and specify steps for the public authority to take.

96. Failure to follow a practice recommendation could lead to a failure to comply with FOIA or the EIR, or could lead to an adverse comment in the Commissioner’s report to Parliament.

15 [Code of Practice] (section 45) 20160603 Version: 1.1 Page 165

More information

97. This guidance relates only to FOIA. If the information is environmental, public authorities will instead need to consider our guidance on regulation 16 of the EIR.

98. Additional guidance is available on our guidance pages.

99. This guidance has been developed drawing on ICO experience and is based upon the current published section 45 Code of Practice. It will be reviewed from time to time in line with the publication of any updated or amended code and in line with decisions of the Information Commissioner, Tribunals and courts.

100. If you need any more information about this or any other aspect of freedom of information, please contact us, or visit our website at www.ico.org.uk.

16 [Code of Practice] (section 45) 20160603 Version: 1.1 Page 166

How the Information Commissioner’s Office selects authorities for monitoring

The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) recognises that there are a number of reasons why public authorities may be unable to achieve full compliance with the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 or the associated Codes of Practice. The ICO must try to assess compliance in a way which allows us to deploy resource effectively, by focussing on what appear to be the more serious or repeated examples of poor performance. We have specifically targeted timeliness as this is an area of compliance which is regularly shown to be problematic.

In monitoring authorities’ timeliness the ICO’s Performance Improvement Department has adopted some general ‘rules of thumb’ which will be used to direct attention towards those authorities experiencing the most difficultly. The ICO may contact authorities if:

• our analysis of complaints received by the ICO suggests that we have received in the region of 4 to 8 or more complaints citing delays within a specific authority within a six month period

• (for those authorities which publish data on timeliness) – it appears that less than 90% of requests are receiving a response within the appropriate timescales.

• Evidence of a possible problem in the media, other external sources or internal business intelligence.

Whilst the ICO cannot condone breaches of the legislation we regulate, we will be proportionate in our approach. During the monitoring we will seek to determine authorities’ reasons for failing to meet the requirements of the legislation; the progress demonstrated since the Performance Improvement Department’s intervention; and the overall commitment to improvement before deciding whether to take action. The process of

V 4 20170303 Page 167 monitoring is therefore an opportunity for the authorities concerned to demonstrate that the requirements of the legislation are taken seriously.

Unless exceptional circumstances should arise, the ICO intends to monitor each authority for a period of three months. However we may take action in advance of this timeframe if an authority’s standard of compliance is revealed to be particularly poor, or if it is unwilling to make the improvements necessary.

Details of the action the ICO may take in the event that monitoring fails to encourage a sufficient improvement can be found in the Freedom of information regulatory action policy.

The ICO’s approach to monitoring authorities’ timeliness will be kept under review in light of our experiences.

V 4 20170303 Page 168 Appendix G

OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMISSION HELD ON 19 FEBRUARY 2018 (FROM 5.30 PM TO 7.09 PM)

PRESENT: Councillor David Goode in the Chair. Councillors Bernard Bateman, Philip Broadbank, Nick Brown, Ian Galloway, Nathan Hull, John Mann, Pat Marsh, Stuart Martin, Tim Myatt, Bob O’Neill, Andrew Paraskos and Cliff Trotter.

Late Arrivals: Councillor Nathan Hull at 5.37 pm

Early Departures: Councillor David Goode at 7.01 pm

73/17 – APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND NOTIFICATION OF SUBSTITUTES: Apologies for absence had been received from Councillor Pauline McHardy and Councillor Ashley Teague.

(5.34 pm)

74/17 – DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST: There were no declarations of interest.

(5.34 pm)

75/17 – MINUTES: The Minutes of the meeting of 15 January 2018 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

(Eleven members voted for the motion and there was one abstention)

(5.34 pm)

76/17 – EXEMPT INFORMATION: There were no exempt information items.

(5.35 pm)

77/17 – PUBLIC ARRANGEMENTS – QUESTIONS: There were no questions to consider under Standing Order 27.

(5.36 pm)

SCRUTINY MATTERS AND REVIEWS UNDERTAKEN BY THE COMMISSION

78/17 – REVIEW OF FREEDOM OF INFORMATION SCHEME: The Chair welcomed Bernice Elgot, Chief Solicitor (CS) and Rich Kemp, Legal Assistant (Debt & Information Law) (LA), who provided a verbal presentation on the council’s freedom of information (FOI) scheme processes and procedures.

In response to a request under Overview and Scrutiny procedure rule 15 (d) the Chair invited Mr Lilley, a member of the public, to address the Commission for this item on the agenda. Mr Lilley had previously addressed the Commission requesting

Page 169 OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMISSION

that a review of the council’s freedom of information scheme, including the internal review process, was undertaken. In speaking to the Commission, Mr Lilley stated that this was an important issue that was central to the council’s accountability and transparency arrangements. Mr Lilley raised a number of concerns regarding the council’s freedom of information scheme including the information provided in responses, the timeliness of response, the use of exemptions in providing information and the internal review process, including the role of the Legal Service. In light of Mr Lilley’s concerns, the Commission had previously agreed to undertake a review into the council’s freedom of information scheme, which would be considered under this item.

The LA and CS then provided a verbal presentation which gave detail on the council’s freedom of information scheme.

Legislation – An overview of the FOI legislation was provided, including Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the Environmental Information Regulations. In response to a question from the Chair on whether the council treated all requests for information as FOI requests, the LA advised that Officers regularly dealt with requests from the public for information and not all requests were handled as part of the FOI process.

Policy/Guidance – The LA advised that the council did not have a specific FOI policy as the legislation and Information Commissioner’s guidance provided the mechanism for dealing with FOI requests, which was underpinned by the Code of Practice. This was discussed by the Commission including consideration of the information available on the council website. It was considered that the legislation was difficult to understand and the website could be improved to provide more information to the public. It was suggested that a simple policy could be developed and the website improved to provide similar information to other councils. It was emphasised that any information should be written in plain English, available both online and in written format.

The LA explained the council’s FOI procedures, which included a guidance document available for all staff on the council’s internal website, a compulsory e- learning course for all staff, and a log of FOI requests received. It was agreed that a redacted version of the FOI log would be shared with the Commission. Once a FOI request was received, it was logged, forwarded to relevant departmental representatives, legal advice given where an exemption may apply and finally the response was formulated and sent within the statutory time limits. In response to a question from Councillor Nick Brown on departmental FOI representatives, the LA advised that not all departments had representatives.

Requests for Information – The LA advised that under Section 8 of the FOI Act, any written requests received that met the requirements were treated as an FOI even if they did not refer to FOI. Requests received by the council could be via the dedicated email account, via letter or the online webform. FOI requests could be received by any officer at the council. FOI requests can also be made through the general complaints procedure which may include in part FOI requests. In response to a question from the Chair about the main categories of FOI requests received, the LA advised that the main areas related to planning and other significant areas

Page 170 OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMISSION

included requests related to revenue and benefits (including business rates and write offs), public health funerals, housing stock and events on the Stray. It was noted that requests were frequently complicated involving disclosure of correspondence and documents often compiled over a long period of time and many requiring redaction of information to comply with data protection requirements.

Responsibility for Responding – It was explained that the LA managed and co- ordinated the FOI process and that the LA was located in Legal Services. There were departmental representatives who co-ordinated the logging, acknowledgment and response to requests on behalf of their departments. Once received by the departmental representative a request may be forwarded on to a more relevant officer in that department. It was identified that there was not a dedicated central resource to respond to FOI requests.

Requests Received – Figures were provided detailing the number of requests received in the last 5 years, with 745 requests received up to 8 February 2018 for 2017/18. In response to a question from Councillor Bernard Bateman on the costs associated with the number of requests made, the LA advised that responding to FOI requests was a statutory requirement that the council must undertake. It was noted that an exemption could be applied if the costs were deemed too high (£450/ £25 per hour multiplied by 18 officer hours) or costs could be funded by the person submitting the request. In response to a question from Councillor Nathan Hull on potentially time wasting requests, the LA advised that the FOI scheme was “motive blind” and all requests must be considered, although there was an exemption that could be applied in relation to vexatious requests. Figures were then provided detailing the number of requests refused, with 51 of 745 (7%) for 2017/18. This did not include requests that were redirected to other public authorities or in cases where the information was already published.

Requests Refused – The LA explained reasons for refusal of some FOI requests and detailed the exemptions that may be applied. This included the cost limit, information available by other means (for example, from other public authorities), information intended for future publication (for example, business rates are published on a quarterly basis), personal data, information provided in confidence (which may be protected by confidentiality agreements), legal professional privilege (legal advice provided to the council by internal/external lawyers) and commercial interests (procurements and contracts). The CS advised that the legal professional privilege exemption was occasionally waived and gave an example of one case where the information was already in the public domain. The LA advised that many of the qualified exemptions required a balance to judge whether there was a public interest in disclosing the information which overrides the right to exempt from disclosure.

In response to a question from Councillor John Mann seeking a comparison in the number of requests received compared to other councils, the LA advised that information was not required to be published, so this data was not readily available. However, there was currently a consultation on an updated Code of Practice which may require councils to publish this data in the future. In response to a question from Councillor Nathan Hull on determining the cost for the council in answering requests, the CS advised that only legal services time was recorded so costs could be only be calculated in this area of the council. In response to questions regarding the council’s

Page 171 OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMISSION

transparency arrangements, the LA explained that the Transparency pages on the external website provided a wide range of data such as chief officer salaries, spending over £250 and the organisational structure. In response to a question from the Chair regarding the principles of openness at the council in dealing with FOI requests, the LA explained that the figures show that there were a large number of FOI requests whilst refusal numbers and requests for internal reviews were low.

Reasons for Refusal – The LA explained the timescales for responding to FOI requests are set out in the legislation that sets a working day deadline to respond following receipt. Lack of timeliness in responses may be monitored by the Information Commissioners Office (ICO) if the percentage of requests responded to within the time limit falls below 90%. The LA confirmed that the figures referred to either a full response or refusal and did not refer to acknowledgement/clarification responses. Figures were provided for the previous five years which showed that the council remained above the 90% target in all years.

In response to a question from the Chair on why the council was not achieving 100% response rate, the LA advised that this may be due to resource shortages, staff holidays and time taken to coordinate complex responses amongst a number of officers. In such situations the customer is kept informed of timescales. The CS gave an example of information retrieved by IT after a server failure. In response to a question from Councillor Nick Brown on whether there were sanctions for poor response times, the LA advised there were no financial sanctions but the council may be monitored by the ICO or referred to the ICO by the customer.

Internal Reviews – All FOI responses provided detail of how to request an internal review if the member of the public was not satisfied with the response, this included further information on the right to refer to the ICO.

The internal review process was explained, which showed that a senior officer (Director or Head of Service) who was not involved in the original request would review the response and the way it was handled, advised by the CS who would provide legal advice. Figures were provided detailing the number of internal reviews in the last five years, with 12 internal reviews requested up to 8 February 2018 for 2017/18. Although concerns were raised by Councillors that there would be the perception that the council was reviewing its own decisions, the CS stated that this was consistent with other councils and with other legislative requirements such as corporate complaints prior to referral to the Ombudsman and the Assets of Community Value Regulations.

Internal Review Outcomes – The outcome of internal reviews was also provided, with 10 out of the 12 internal reviews supporting the original response made for 2017/18. In the past five years, only 2 referrals were made to the ICO. In response to a question from the Chair regarding the possibility of external reviews, the LA advised that this would lead to higher costs unless, for example, a neighbouring authority may agree to assist in exceptional cases. The ICO is in place as the appeal body.

Page 172 OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMISSION

The Chair then summarised the discussions and it was agreed that a further meeting would be planned for the Commission to continue the review of the council’s Freedom of Information Scheme, which would consider the following:

• The importance of obtaining comparative statistics with other similar local authorities • To determine whether it would be possible to ascertain the cost associated with responding to FOI requests by Legal Services Officers • To determine whether any improvements could be made to the processes and procedures of the council’s FOI scheme • The possibility of requesting departmental representatives for FOI requests to attend the next meeting to provide their views of the process and explore other ways the FOI process could be delivered • To consider the support provided to deal with Freedom of Information requests • The council’s approach to transparency and publication of data • The possibility of speaking to members of the public to understand their experience of FOI requests with the council • Consideration of the council’s external website and compare this with best practice at other similar local authorities • Review the council’s central FOI log • Explore the possibility of developing a simple plain English FOI policy/document for members of the public, both written and online.

The Chair thanked Officers for their attendance and responses to questions.

Following the end of this item, Councillor David Goode (the Chair) left the meeting and Councillor Tim Myatt assumed the role of Chair.

(5.32 pm – 7.01 pm)

79/17 – OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMISSION FUTURE WORK PROGRAMME: The Scrutiny, Governance and Risk Manager submitted a written report presenting the current draft Work Programme for the Commission, which detailed the programme of work for the Commission for the remainder of the municipal year.

The Chair advised that the March meeting would consider Crime and Disorder matters (including the Chair of North Yorkshire County Council Police and Crime Panel in attendance). The April meeting would consider health in the Harrogate district, a date of which had yet to be determined, and would also include the final report of the FOI scheme review.

(7.01 pm – 7.08 pm)

MATTERS HOLDING THE EXECUTIVE/PARTNERS TO ACCOUNT

80/17 – FORWARD PLAN OF KEY DECISIONS: Members considered the latest Forward Plan of key decisions.

Page 173 OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMISSION

(7.08 pm – 7.09 pm)

Page 174 Complia Complian Number Number nce with Number ce with Number of of 2015/16 Requests Received 20 of ICO 2016/17 Requests Received 20 of ICO 2017/18 (to date) Internal Internal working Referrals working Referrals Reviews Reviews days days Harrogate Borough Harrogate Harrogate Council 686 96% 4 0 Borough Council 824 96% 8 2 Borough Council CIPFA Nearest Neighbours CIPFA Nearest Neighbours CIPFA Nearest Neighbours Mid Sussex 525 95% 10 2 Mid Sussex 705 97% 5 2 Mid Sussex

Maidstone 867 21 0 Maidstone 806 31 1 Maidstone Horsham 590 91% 18 1 Horsham 628 93% 22 4 Horsham Warwick 531 89% 4 6 Warwick 566 89% 7 4 Warwick Mendip 613 87% Mendip 652 83% Mendip Chelmsfor

Page 175 Page d 650 95% 7 Chelmsford 750 98% 8 Chelmsford Taunton Deane 572 82% Taunton Deane 616 79% 2 0 Taunton Deane East Herts 610 87% 1 0 East Herts 677 87% 0 0 East Herts Stroud 457 86% Stroud 492 83% Stroud East Hampshir e 690 95% East Hampshire 712 94% 8 6 East Hampshire Stafford 400 Stafford 560 Stafford Stratford- on-Avon 549 54% Stratford-on-Avon 597 82% Stratford-on-Avon South Kesteven South Kesteven South Kesteven Test Valley 622 81% Test Valley 727 94% 7 1 Test Valley South Somerset 1467 60% South Somerset 1276 51% South Somerset Average 655 84% 9 2 Average 706 87% 10 2 Average Complia Number nce with Number of Requests Received 20 of ICO Internal working Referrals Reviews days

883 91% 12 0 CIPFA Nearest Neighbours

713 99% 0 2

859 90% 16 1 630 93% 17 7 747 93% 8 1 Page 176 Page

800 92% 10 3

160 80% 2 1

627 92% 1 1 468 87% 1 4

632 97% 7 1 580

763 44% 3 2

607 92% 12 1

735 18% 4 1 657 82% 7 2 Appendix I

Mystery Shopper FOI Requests Submitted

1. Business Mobile Phones – submitted via email • Please provide: a. The councils policy on business mobile phones b. The number of business mobile phones used by council staff by department c. A breakdown of costs of business mobile phones by staff broken down by department for the past 3 years

• Submitted 11 April – response received 10 May (within 20 working days)

2. Housing Applications – submitted via email • Please provide: a. A copy of the council’s housing application policy b. A breakdown of the average time it takes to undertake a housing application

• Submitted 11 April – response received 12 April • Used wrong website and email address for ICO

3. Leisure Facilities – submitted via Webform a. Please provide a breakdown of attendance to all council run leisure facilities for the past 3 years • Submitted 6 April – response received April 19 • Used wrong address for council (crescent gardens) • Used wrong website and email address for ICO

4. Fly-tipping - via Twitter a. Hi Andy, please could you tell me how many fly tipping incidents have been reported to the council in the last year and where they were? • Submitted 5 April 2018 - Response by 3 May 2018 – no response

Page 177 Appendix J

OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMISSION HELD ON 2 JULY 2018 (FROM 5.30 PM TO 6.55 PM)

PRESENT: Councillor Philip Broadbank in the Chair. Councillors Margaret Atkinson, Bernard Bateman, Nick Brown, Trevor Chapman, Ann Myatt, Matt Scott, Nigel Simms and Norman Waller.

Late Arrivals: None

Early Departures: None

18/18 – APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND NOTIFICATION OF SUBSTITUTES: Apologies for absence had been received from Councillors Sue Lumby and Nigel Middlemass. Notification had been received that Councillor Matt Scott was to act as substitute for Councillor Samantha Mearns, Councillor Trevor Chapman was to act for Councillor Tom Watson and that Councillor Nigel Simms was to act for Councillor John Mann.

(5.31 pm)

19/18 – DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST: There were no declarations of interest.

(5.32 pm)

20/18 – MINUTES: The Minutes had not yet been finalised from the previous meeting held on 27 June 2018 and would therefore be presented to the next meeting of the Commission.

(5.32 pm)

21/18 – EXEMPT INFORMATION: There were no exempt information items.

(5.32 pm)

22/18 – PUBLIC ARRANGEMENTS – QUESTIONS: There were no questions to consider under Standing Order 27.

(5.32 pm)

SCRUTINY MATTERS AND REVIEWS UNDERTAKEN BY THE COMMISSION

23/18 – REVIEW OF THE OPERATION OF THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION (FOI) SCHEME:

(1) The Chair welcomed the Information and Systems Manager (ISM) from the council’s Planning and Development Service to the meeting as the FOI ‘champion’ for this service area. Also in attendance was the Information Governance

Page 178 OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMISSION

Manager (IGM) from Craven District Council (CDC), who was in attendance to provide details on the FOI process and procedure at a neighbouring authority.

The Scrutiny, Governance and Risk Manager (SGRM) delivered a presentation to provide an update to the Commission on the on-going work of the review of the operation of the council’s freedom of information (FOI) scheme. This was the second meeting under which this item had been considered and would provide an update on work undertaken to meet the agreed scope. This included the background of FOI legislation, the council’s procedure for FOI, and guidance issued by the Information Commissioners Office (ICO). Statistics were also provided for the council’s response rate to FOI requests, which showed that the council had exceeded the ICO’s requirement of responding to FOI requests within 20 working days for 90% of requests received for the previous five years.

Since the previous meeting in which FOI was reviewed, comparative data had been collected to compare the council’s FOI performance and processes with other similar councils. Data had been requested from the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA) ‘Nearest Neighbours’, who were council’s identified as the most similar to Harrogate Borough Council (HBC) compared with several indicators, including population, percentage unemployment, number of retail premises, percentage of properties band A-D etc.

The total number of requests received since 2015/16 showed that compared to the other similar authorities, HBC had received a slightly above average number of requests, with the third highest number of requests received. When comparing this to the percentage of FOI requests responded to within 20 working days, it showed that HBC was above average in terms of its response rate and in comparison to the authorities who had received the top five number of requests, HBC was joint second highest response rate. Therefore, this showed that compared to other similar local authorities, HBC response rates to requests was above average.

In terms of internal reviews, there had been an increase in the number of internal reviews in the past five years for HBC. In comparison to the similar authorities, HBC had received above average number of internal reviews for 2017/18. When comparing the number of requests received against the number of internal reviews, it showed that HBC was slightly above average. In response to a number of questions that were submitted to the similar authorities on their internal review process, which officers undertook internal reviews, the responsibility for FOI and whether there was a dedicated FOI officer, it showed that HBC had the same or similar process. In terms of the number of ICO referrals, it showed that for 2017/18 HBC had below average number of ICO referrals in comparison to similar authorities.

In order to ascertain how members of the public experienced the FOI procedure, four FOI’s had been submitted anonymously to the council. Two were submitted via the dedicated FOI email address, one was via the council’s webform on the website and one was via Twitter. Of the three formal requests made, all three had responses within 20 working days. Information was then provided about an updated Code of Practice that was out for consultation with a number of suggested changes, including improved guidance around vexatious requests, publishing information of expenses and benefits in kind, guidance around social media requests and potential

Page 179 OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMISSION

requirement for public authorities with more than 100 full time employees to publish FOI statistics.

Questions were then invited. In response to a question from Councillor Norman Waller on whether Councillors were able to submit FOI requests, the IGM advised that Councillors were able to do so and there is nothing in the legislation or guidance that would prevent this, however it was suggested that the more appropriate method should be that Councillors contact service areas in the first instance. In response to a question from Councillor Trevor Chapman about the improved guidance around vexatious requests in the updated Code of Practice which is out for consultation, the IGM advised that the guidance would be improved to provide the right level of detail in the circumstances in which authorities could consider applying Section 14 (vexatious requests) of the Freedom of Information Act.

In response to a question from Councillor Nick Brown regarding a log of council complaints, it was agreed that a redacted log of all customer feedback would be provided to the Commission. In response to a question from Councillor Ann Myatt on % of requests that are received from individuals vs. corporations, it was agreed that this would be provided to the Commission. In response to a question from Councillor Trevor Chapman about what happens when similar requests are sent in from several different people, the IGM advised that they would be treated as separate requests and would not be treated as vexatious.

The ISM then provided a verbal presentation on how FOI is handled in the council’s departments as the FOI ‘champion’ for the Planning and Development Service. The ISM advised that requests can be made in a number of different ways; the majority of requests are received via the council’s webform/ email, although occasionally they are part of a letter. All officers in the service are required to have an awareness of FOI so that they can recognise a request when received. The majority of requests received by the service were under the Environmental Information Regulations (EIR). When requests are received they are logged onto the central log, which identifies who would be dealing with the request and identifies the deadline for response. Officers would then look to see if previous requests had been received that are similar and ascertain who they need to contact for a response. Contact is made with legal services if they are unsure about the use of exemptions or charges, to ensure they are in keeping with the legislation and on a sound footing. Within the planning and development service, very few requests went beyond the 20 working day deadline.

(2) The IGM then provided a verbal presentation on how FOI is dealt with at CDC by way of comparison. The IGM advised that he oversees complaints and information requests for CDC. Since he had taken on the role, he had undertaken a review to streamline the process in place to ensure that the provision of FOI was incidental for officers (the intention of the legislation), to be cost effective and robust. The IGM advised that the FOI process at HBC was not dissimilar to CDC. The majority of requests were received via the dedicated FOI email address, or were received via letter and the ‘Contact Us’ page on the website.

Requests received via email received an automatic acknowledgment and all others are acknowledged by staff. Requests are extracted and logged, the system provides

Page 180 OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMISSION

automatic due by dates and statistics are automatically collected to ensure requests are dealt with efficiently. If requests are straightforward for example where information is already published or it is the responsibility of North Yorkshire County Council, they are dealt with by two FOI administrators and are not forwarded to service managers. When a request requires a service manager response, these are recorded. All responses included information about the right to complain and opportunity to refer to the ICO. Approximately 40% of requests received are from companies who request information for marketing or for the purpose of selling goods and services.

Contentious or difficult requests are forwarded to the IGM. All requests are treated applicant blind/equally. In terms of complaints, although not legally required, it was best practice to have a complaints process where possible. At CDC, all complaints are handled by the IGM. Where internal reviews are requested they are undertaken by an officer who had not previously dealt with the original request. The IGM provides support for officers who conduct internal reviews, by providing a full briefing and draft response, guidance, details of any relevant precedent decisions and issues raised by the complainant.

In terms of ICO decision notices, CDC has previously contested three decisions, one of which the IGM appealed to the tribunal, who disagreed with the ICO decision notice. In the previous year, CDC had received around 700 requests, with a large spike in requests from January onwards. FOI statistics are reported to management board quarterly. The IGM reviewed administration time and estimated costs of dealing with FOI at CDC and looked to see if there were any ways of streamlining the process.

In response to a question from Councillor Nigel Simms around charges for information of complicated requests, the IGM advised that there is provision for charging in the legislation but in reality charges for information had not been made by CDC, the work conducted had to be proportionate. Information is made readily available on the website, for example business rates, and the requestor can be advised that the information will be published in the future, such as statements of accounts. In response to a question from Councillor Nick Brown about the importance of remaining transparent, the IGM advised that all councils have in place a publication scheme which details all information that is required to be published.

(5.32 pm – 6.41 pm)

24/18 – OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMISSION FUTURE WORK PROGRAMME: The Scrutiny, Governance and Risk Manager submitted a written report to agree an outline work programme for 2018/19, which was attached at Appendix A. A prioritisation workshop for the Commission would be held on 17 July 2018 to identify future items of work.

An item of work was put forward by a member of the public which requested a review into the process of commuted sums; this was attached at Appendix B to the report. This was considered by the Commission and it was agreed that as commuted sums would be replaced by Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) and would likely to be adopted by next year, the Commission would consider the introduction of the CIL

Page 181 OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMISSION

scheme as an item of work at the prioritisation workshop. Comments were also made regarding how the council would ensure clarity on transitional arrangements and whether position statements would be produced for commuted sums as CIL was introduced. These comments would be considered at the prioritisation workshop.

(6.41 pm – 6.54 pm)

MATTERS HOLDING THE EXECUTIVE/PARTNERS TO ACCOUNT

25/18 – FORWARD PLAN OF KEY DECISIONS: Members considered the latest Forward Plan of key decisions.

(6.54 pm – 6.55 pm)

Page 182 Freedom of Information Questionnaire

The purpose of this survey is to find out how satisfied you are with the service you received from us, when you made a request for information under the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act 2000.

The Overview and Scrutiny Commission is currently completing a review into FOI processes and procedures at the council with the aim to of establishing whether improvements could be made to the customer experience. This questionnaire is therefore the opportunity for you to provide your views.

Please take a few minutes to complete our Freedom of Information Satisfaction Survey and let us know how we dealt with your request. It should take no more than 5-10 minutes to complete the survey and the closing date for responses is Friday 28 September 2018.

Any information provided will be anonymous. Thank you very much for your time.

Q1 Was your request dealt with in a timely manner? (The Freedom of Information Act states that a response should be provided within 20 working days following receipt of the request) Yes No Don't know

Q2 If you did not receive your information within the 20 working day deadline, were you advised about the delay and kept informed about the process? Yes No Don't know

Page 183 Q3 Did the response provided fully answer your request? Yes No Don't know

Q4 If any of the information was withheld, was an explanation provided? Yes No Don't know

Q5 Were you provided with details of how to request an internal review in the response to your request?

Yes No Don't know

Page 184 Q6 Did you look on the council’s website to see if the information was available online prior to submitting your request?

Yes No Don't know

Q7 Please rate the overall quality of service we provided in response to your Freedom of Information request.

Very good Good Poor Very poor

Page 185 Q8 Do you have any suggestions that might help us to improve our service? If so, please state below:

Q9 Please give any further comments you would like to make:

Page 186 Freedom_of_Information_Survey Page:1

Freedom of Information Survey Freedom of Information Survey

This report was generated on 01/10/18. Overall 16 respondents completed this questionnaire. The report has been filtered to show the responses for 'All Respondents'.

The following charts are restricted to the top 12 codes. Lists are restricted to the most recent 100 rows.

Was your request dealt with in a timely manner? (The Freedom of Information Act states that a response should be provided within 20 working days following receipt of the request)

Yes (12) 75%

No (4) 25%

Don't know (-)

If you did not receive your information within the 20 working day deadline, were you advised about the delay and kept informed about the process?

No (4) 100%

Yes (-)

Don't know (-)

Did the response provided fully answer your request?

No (9) 56%

Yes (7) 44%

Don't know (-)

If any of the information was withheld, was an explanation provided?

No (8) 53%

Yes (5) 33%

Don't know (2) 13%

Page 187

Snap snapsurveys.com Freedom_of_Information_Survey Page:2

Freedom of Information Survey Were you provided with details of how to request an internal review in the response to your request?

Yes (9) 56%

No (5) 31%

Don't know (2) 13%

Did you look on the council’s website to see if the information was available online prior to submitting your request?

Yes (14) 88%

No (2) 13%

Don't know (-)

Please rate the overall quality of service we provided in response to your Freedom of Information request.

Very good (5) 31%

Good (4) 25%

Poor (4) 25%

Very poor (3) 19%

Page 188

Snap snapsurveys.com Freedom_of_Information_Survey Page:3

Freedom of Information Survey Do you have any suggestions that might help us to improve our service? If so, please state below:

Neaarly all the FOI/DPA requests. I have made over many years involve the Ministry of Defence Police - unaccountable to any credible body. My requests are about MDP who work on US bases here Their services are paid for by the American authories. As you see I have answered NO to the majority of your survey questions. The FOI/DPA unit are at Wethersfield HQ of the MDP. They fail on all the questions I have put NO to. They hide behind the blanket of 'national security' - in many cases unjustifed. They will not give any information and eg several cases of with holding CCTV evidence on the grounds that it belongs to the American authorites. A maximum of 20-days is a long-time when people are looking for information so perhaps efforts cab made to get taverage response time doen to 7-days with a 12-day maximum response time - Try being open and honest rather than pedantically avoiding addressing the issue raised. Poor service and arrogant behaviour. A response to my request would have been helpful simple one item document requests stiil take meximum time allowed, this illustrates HBC unwillingness to complt with the Act You need to ensure officer's don't treat this as a joke! There appears to be an issue in retrieving files and information from archived records in the planning department. Also having received some information of archived files it appears that many documents have been dublicated. The most productive FOI requests are often those where a council officer gives informal guidance on the subject. This can be more useful than a box ticking response, even if you don't get an answer to your exact question.

Please give any further comments you would like to make:

I would be grateful when analysing my comments that you scrutised the unaccountable force. I am willing to provide the evidence which will back up what I say. - Service could not have been more helpful. My case number is FS-case 30247284 - Flood Risk Assessment for The development known as "Pannal Hall Farm - Residents Management Co Ltd" when requests are refused as been too large and costly a fixed price should be provided to the cost of comliance of the request. As a former senior officer I was ashamed. After three attempts I finally received a response from mr. Kilburn in which he admitted FOI requests are a nuisance and he doesn't normally take them seriously. I was 'Favoured' with that as an ex colleague! I was asking as a candidate for election and had I been so inclined I could have used the episode and response to political advantage. In the end I found I hold such a low opinion of the Council now that I simply couldn't be bothered. Similarly nothing will come of this!

Page 189

Snap snapsurveys.com Refusing a request

In brief

A requester may ask for any information that is held by a public authority. However, this does not mean you are always obliged to provide the information. In some cases, there will be a good reason why you should not make public some or all of the information requested.

You can refuse an entire request under the following circumstances:

It would cost too much or take too much staff time to deal with the request. The request is vexatious. The request repeats a previous request from the same person.

In addition, the Freedom of Information Act contains a number of exemptions that allow you to withhold information from a requester. In some cases it will allow you to refuse to confirm or deny whether you hold information.

Some exemptions relate to a particular type of information, for instance, information relating to government policy. Other exemptions are based on the harm that would arise or would be likely arise from disclosure, for example, if disclosure would be likely to prejudice a criminal investigation or prejudice someone’s commercial interests.

There is also an exemption for personal data if releasing it would be contrary to the Data Protection Act.

You can automatically withhold information because an exemption applies only if the exemption is ‘absolute’. This may be, for example, information you receive from the security services, which is covered by an absolute exemption. However, most exemptions are not absolute but require you to apply a public interest test. This means you must consider the public interest arguments before deciding whether to disclose the information. So you may have to disclose information in spite of an exemption, where it is in the public interest to do so.

If you are refusing all or any part of a request, you must send the requester a written refusal notice. You will need to issue a refusal notice if you are either refusing to say whether you hold information at all, or confirming that information is held but refusing to release it.

In more detail

When can we refuse a request on the grounds of cost? How do we work out whether the cost limit would be exceeded? What if we think complying with the request would exceed the cost limit? Can we charge extra if complying with a request exceeds the cost limit? When can we refuse a request as vexatious? When can we refuse a request because it is repeated? What if we want to refuse a request as vexatious or repeated? When can we withhold information under an exemption? Page 190 14 August 2017 - 4.9.39 1 When can we use an exemption to refuse to say whether we have the information? What exemptions are there? What is ‘prejudice’ and how do we decide whether disclosure would cause this? Can we withhold information about people who have died? Can we have extra time to consider exemptions? When and how do we apply the public interest test? How much extra time can we have to consider the public interest test? Is there anything else we need to know about exemptions? If we are relying on an exemption, what do we need to tell the requester? What do we have to include in a refusal notice? What if we are withholding only parts of a document? What if the requester is unhappy with the outcome?

When can we refuse a request on the grounds of cost?

The Act recognises that freedom of information requests are not the only demand on the resources of a public authority. They should not be allowed to cause a drain on your time, energy and finances to the extent that they negatively affect your normal public functions.

Currently, the cost limit for complying with a request or a linked series of requests from the same person or group is set at £600 for central government, Parliament and the armed forces and £450 for all other public authorities. You can refuse a request if you estimate that the cost of compliance would exceed this limit. This provision is found at section 12 of the Act.

You can refuse a request if deciding whether you hold the information would mean you exceed the cost limit, for example, because it would require an extensive search in a number of locations. Otherwise, you should say whether you hold the information, even if you cannot provide the information itself under the cost ceiling.

When calculating the costs of complying, you can aggregate (total) the costs of all related requests you receive within 60 working days from the same person or from people who seem to be working together.

How do we work out whether the cost limit would be exceeded?

You are only required to estimate whether the limit would be exceeded. You do not have to do the work covered by the estimate before deciding to refuse the request. However, the estimate must be reasonable and must follow the rules in the Freedom of Information (Appropriate Limit and Fees) Regulations 2004 .

When estimating the cost of compliance, you can only take into account the cost of the following activities:

determining whether you hold the information; finding the requested information, or records containing the information; retrieving the information or records; and Page 191 14 August 2017 - 4.9.39 2 extracting the requested information from records.

The biggest cost is likely to be staff time. You should rate staff time at £25 per person per hour, regardless of who does the work, including external contractors. This means a limit of 18 or 24 staff hours, depending on whether the £450 or £600 limit applies to your public authority.

You cannot take into account the time you are likely to need to decide whether exemptions apply, to redact (edit out) exempt information, or to carry out the public interest test.

However, if the cost and resources required to review and remove any exempt information are likely to be so great as to place the organisation under a grossly obsessive burden then you may be able to consider the request under Section 14 instead. (vexatious requests).

Please see 'Dealing with vexatious requests ' for further details about refusing requests which impose a grossly oppressive burden.

Note that although fees and the appropriate limit are both laid down in the same Regulations, the two things must not be confused:

The cost of compliance and the appropriate limit relate to when a request can be refused. The fees are what you can charge when information is disclosed.

See What should we do when we receive a request? for the rules on charging a fee.

For further information, read our more detailed guidance:

Further Reading

 Requests where the cost of compliance exceeds the appropriate limit  For organisations PDF (341.41K)

 Calculating costs where a request spans different access regimes  For organisations PDF (168.12K)

What if we think complying with the request would exceed the cost limit?

If you wish to use section 12 (cost limit) of the Act as grounds for refusing the request, you should send the requester a written refusal notice. This should state that complying with their request would exceed the appropriate cost limit. However, you should still say whether you hold the information, unless finding this out would in itself incur costs over the limit.

There is no official requirement for you to include an estimate of the costs in the refusal notice. However, you must give the requester reasonable advice and assistance to refine (change or narrow) their request. This will generally involve explaining why the limit would be exceeded and what information, if any, may be available within the limits.



Page 192 14 August 2017 - 4.9.39 3 Example “You have asked for all the details of expenses claims made for food or drink between 1995 and 2010.

No forms have been kept for the period before 1999. Between 1999 and 2006, these forms were submitted manually and are not stored separately or sorted by type of expenditure but are filed in date order along with other invoices and bills. We estimate that we have at least 10,000 items in these boxes, and we would have to look at every page to identify the relevant information. Even at 10 seconds an item, this would amount to more than 27 hours of work.

However, records since 2007 are kept electronically and we could provide these to you.”

You should not:

give the requester part of the information requested, without giving them the chance to say which part they would prefer to receive; fail to let the requester know why you think you cannot provide the information within the cost limit; advise the requester on the wording of a narrower request but then refuse that request on the same basis; or tell the requester to narrow down their request without explaining what parts of their request take your costs over the limit. A more specific request may sometimes take just as long to answer. For instance, in the example above, if the requester had later asked only for expenses claims relating to hotel room service, this would also have meant searching all the records.

If the requester refines their request appropriately, you should then deal with this as a new request. The time for you to comply with the new request should start on the working day after the date you receive it.

If the requester does not want to refine their request, but instead asks you to search for information up to the costs limit, you can do this if you wish, but the Act does not require you to do so.

Can we charge extra if complying with a request exceeds the cost limit

Yes, if complying with a request would cost you more than the £450 or £600 limit, you can refuse it outright or do the work for an extra charge.

If you choose to comply with a request costing over £450 or £600, you can charge:

the cost of compliance (the costs allowed in calculating whether the appropriate limit is exceeded); plus the communication costs (see What should we do when we receive a request?); plus £25 an hour for staff time taken for printing, copying or sending the information.

You should not do this work without getting written agreement from the requester that they will pay the extra costs. You should also give the requester the option of refining their request rather than paying extra. The ‘time for compliance’ clock is paused in these circumstances, until you receive payment.

For further information, read our more detailed guidance:

Page 193 14 August 2017 - 4.9.39 4 Further reading

 Fees that may be charged when the cost of compliance exceeds the appropriate limit  For organisations PDF (241.81K)

When can we refuse a request as vexatious?

As a general rule, you should not take into account the identity or intentions of a requester when considering whether to comply with a request for information. You cannot refuse a request simply because it does not seem to be of much value. However, a minority of requesters may sometimes abuse their rights under the Freedom of Information Act, which can threaten to undermine the credibility of the freedom of information system and divert resources away from more deserving requests and other public business.

You can refuse to comply with a request that is vexatious. If so, you do not have to comply with any part of it, or even confirm or deny whether you hold information. When assessing whether a request is vexatious, the Act permits you to take into account the context and history of a request, including the identity of the requester and your previous contact with them. The decision to refuse a request often follows a long series of requests and correspondence.

The key question to ask yourself is whether the request is likely to cause a disproportionate or unjustifiable level of distress, disruption or irritation.

Bear in mind that it is the request that is considered vexatious, not the requester. If after refusing a request as vexatious you receive a subsequent request from the same person, you can refuse it only if it also meets the criteria for being vexatious.

You should be prepared to find a request vexatious in legitimate circumstances, but you should exercise care when refusing someone’s rights in this way.

For further information, read our more detailed guidance:

Further Reading

 Dealing with vexatious requests  For organisations PDF (454.89K)

When can we refuse a request because it is repeated?

You can refuse requests if they are repeated, whether or not they are also vexatious. You can normally refuse to comply with a request if it is identical or substantially similar to one you previously complied with from the same requester. You cannot refuse a request from the same requester just because it is for information on a related topic. You can do so only when there is a complete or substantial overlap between the two sets of information.

You cannot refuse a request as repeated once a reasonable period has passed. The reasonable period is not set down in law but depends on the circumstances, including, for example, how often the information you hold changes. Page 194 14 August 2017 - 4.9.39 5 

Example "Please could you send me the latest copy of your register of interests? You kindly sent me a copy of this two years ago but I assume it may have been updated since then. Also I no longer have the copy you sent previously.”

This request is not repeated because a reasonable period has elapsed.

What if we want to refuse a request as vexatious or repeated?

You should send the requester a written refusal notice. If the request is vexatious or repeated, you need only state that this is your decision; you do not need to explain it further. However, you should keep a record of the reasons for your decision so that you can justify it to the Information Commissioner’s Office if a complaint is made.

If you are receiving vexatious or repeated requests from the same person, you can send a single refusal notice to the applicant, stating that you have found their requests to be vexatious or repeated (as appropriate) and that you will not send a written refusal in response to any further vexatious or repeated requests.

This does not mean you can ignore all future requests from this person. For example, a future request could be about a completely different topic, or have a valid purpose. You must consider whether the request is vexatious or repeated in each case.

For further information, read our more detailed guidance:

Further Reading

 Dealing with vexatious requests  For organisations PDF (454.89K)

 Dealing with repeat requests  For organisations PDF (309.38K)

When can we withhold information under an exemption?

Exemptions exist to protect information that should not be disclosed, for example because disclosing it would be harmful to another person or it would be against the public interest.

The exemptions in Part II of the Freedom of Information Act apply to information. This may mean that you can only apply an exemption to part of the information requested, or that you may need to apply different exemptions to different sections of a document.

You do not have to apply an exemption. However, you must ensure that in choosing to release Page 195 14 August 2017 - 4.9.39 6 information that may be exempt, you do not disclose information in breach of some other law, such as disclosing personal information in breach of the Data Protection Act. Nor do you have to identify all the exemptions that may apply to the same information, if you are content that one applies.

You can automatically withhold information because an exemption applies only if the exemption is ‘absolute’. However, most exemptions are not absolute but are ‘qualified’. This means that before deciding whether to withhold information under an exemption, you must consider the public interest arguments. This balancing exercise is usually called the public interest test (PIT). The Act requires you to disclose information unless there is good reason not to, so the exemption can only be maintained (upheld) if the public interest in doing so outweighs the public interest in disclosure.



Example The BBC received a request for two contracts relating to licence fee collection. The Commissioner accepted that some of the information in the contracts was commercially sensitive and it was likely that it would prejudice the BBC’s commercial interests. However, this was not significant enough to outweigh the need for the BBC to be accountable for its use of public money, as well as the importance of informing an ongoing consultation about the licence fee.

(ICO decision notice FS50296349 )

In this case, even though the information fell within an exemption, the public interest favoured disclosure.

You can have extra time to consider the public interest. However, you must still contact the requester within the standard time for compliance to let them know you are claiming a time extension.

When can we use an exemption to refuse to say whether we have the information?

In some cases, even confirming that information is or is not held may be sensitive. In these cases, you may be able to give a ‘neither confirm nor deny’ (NCND) response.

Whether you need to give a NCND response should usually depend on how the request is worded, not on whether you hold the information. You should apply the NCND response consistently, in any case where either confirming or denying could be harmful.



Example “Please could you send me the investigation file relating to the murder committed at 23 Any Street on 12 January 2011?”

In this case, assuming the murder was publicly reported, the police could confirm that they held some information on the topic, without giving the contents.

“Please could you send me any information you have linking Mr Joe Bloggs to the murder committed Page 196 14 August 2017 - 4.9.39 7 at 23 Any Street on 12 January 2011”

In this case the police do not confirm whether they hold any such information. If they do have information, this could tip off a suspect, and may be unfair to Mr Bloggs. If they don’t have the information, this could also be valuable information for the murderer. So the police would give the same response, whether or not they hold any such information.

Unless otherwise specified, all the exemptions below also give you the option to claim an exclusion from the duty to confirm or deny whether information is held, in appropriate cases.

If you think you may need to claim an exclusion from the duty to confirm or deny whether you hold information, then you will need to consider this duty separately from the duty to provide information. You will need to do this both:

when you decide whether an exemption applies; and when you apply the public interest test.

If it would be damaging to even confirm or deny if information is held, then you must issue a refusal notice explaining this to the requester. In this situation we would not expect you to go on to address the separate question of whether any information that is held should be disclosed, at this stage. You will need to do this only if the requester successfully appeals against your NCND response and you do actually hold some information.

However, if you decide that you are willing to confirm or deny whether information is held, and you do in fact hold some information, then you will need to immediately go on to consider whether that information should be disclosed.

For further information, read our more detailed guidance:

Further Reading

 Duty to confirm or deny  For organisations PDF (174.16K)

What exemptions are there?

Some exemptions apply only to a particular category or class of information, such as information held for criminal investigations or relating to correspondence with the royal family. These are called class-based exemptions.

Some exemptions require you to judge whether disclosure may cause a specific type of harm, for instance, endangering health and safety, prejudicing law enforcement, or prejudicing someone’s commercial interests. These are called prejudice-based exemptions.

This distinction between ‘class-based’ and ‘prejudice-based’ is not in the wording of the Act but many people find it a useful way of thinking about the exemptions.

The Act also often refers to other legislation or common law principles, such as confidentiality, legal professional privilege, or data protection. In many cases, you may need to apply some kind of legal Page 197 14 August 2017 - 4.9.39 8 ‘test’ - it is not as straightforward as identifying that information fits a specific description. It is important to read the full wording of any exemption, and if necessary consult our guidance, before trying to rely on it.

The exemptions can be found in Part II of the Act, at sections 21 to 44.

What is ‘prejudice’ and how do we decide whether disclosure would cause this?

For the purposes of the Act, ‘prejudice’ means causing harm in some way. Many of the exemptions listed below apply if disclosing the information you hold would harm the interests covered by the exemption. In the same way, confirming or denying whether you have the information can also cause prejudice. Deciding whether disclosure would cause prejudice is called the prejudice test.

To decide whether disclosure (or confirmation/denial) would cause prejudice:

you must be able to identify a negative consequence of the disclosure (or confirmation/denial), and this negative consequence must be significant (more than trivial); you must be able to show a link between the disclosure (or confirmation/denial) and the negative consequences, showing how one would cause the other; and there must be at least a real possibility of the negative consequences happening, even if you can’t say it is more likely than not.

For further information, read our more detailed guidance:

Further Reading

 The prejudice test  For organisations PDF (345.55K)

 Information in the public domain (if some information is already publicly available)  For organisations PDF (372.11K)

Section 21 – information already reasonably accessible

This exemption applies if the information requested is already accessible to the requester. You could apply this if you know that the requester already has the information, or if it is already in the public domain. For this exemption, you will need to take into account any information the requester gives you about their circumstances. For example, if information is available to view in a public library in Southampton, it may be reasonably accessible to a local resident but not to somebody living in Glasgow. Similarly, an elderly or infirm requester may tell you they don’t have access to the internet at home and find it difficult to go to their local library, so information available only over the internet would not be reasonably accessible to them.

When applying this exemption, you have a duty to confirm or deny whether you hold the information, even if you are not going to provide it. You should also tell the requester where they can get it.

This exemption is absolute, so you do not need to apply the public interest test. Page 198 14 August 2017 - 4.9.39 9 For further information, read our more detailed guidance:

Further Reading

 Section 21 – Information reasonably accessible to the applicant by other means  For organisations PDF (277.4K)

Section 22 – information intended for future publication

This exemption applies if, when you receive a request for information, you are preparing the material and definitely intend for it to be published, and it is reasonable not to disclose it until then. You do not need to have identified a publication date. This exemption does not necessarily apply to all draft materials or background research. It will only apply to the material you intend to be published.

You do not have to confirm whether you hold the information requested if doing so would reveal the content of the information.

This exemption is qualified by the public interest test.

For further information, read our more detailed guidance:

Further Reading

 Sections 22 and 22A – information intended for future publication and research information  For organisations PDF (316.34K)

Section 22A – research information

This exemption applies if, when you receive a request for information,

you hold information on an ongoing programme of research;

there is an intention by someone –whether an individual or organisation, private or public sector - to publish a report of the research; and

disclosure of the information would or would be likely to prejudice the research programme, the interests of participants in the programme, or a public authority holding or intending to publish a report of the research.

So long as the research programme is continuing, the exemption may apply to a wide range of information relating to the research project. There does not have to be any intention to publish the particular information that has been requested, nor does there need to be an identified publication date.

You do not have to confirm whether you hold the information requested if doing so would reveal the content of the information.

This exemption is qualified by the public interest test.

For further information, read our more detailed guidance: Page 199 14 August 2017 - 4.9.39 10 Further Reading

 Sections 22 and 22A – information intended for future publication and research information  For organisations PDF (316.34K)

Sections 23 and 24 – security bodies and national security

The section 23 exemption applies to any information you have received from, or relates to, any of a list of named security bodies such as the security service. You do not have to confirm or deny whether you hold the information, if doing so would reveal anything about that body or anything you have received from it. A government minister can issue a certificate confirming that this exemption applies.

This exemption is absolute, so you do not need to consider the public interest test.

The section 24 exemption applies if it is “required for the purpose of safeguarding national security”. The exemption does not apply just because the information relates to national security.

A government minister can issue a certificate confirming that this exemption applies and this can only be challenged on judicial review grounds. However, the exemption is qualified by the public interest test.

Section 25 is not an exemption, but gives more detail about the ministerial certificates mentioned above.

For further information, read our more detailed guidance:

Further Reading

 Section 23: security bodies  For organisations PDF (322.03K)

 Section 24: safeguarding national security  For organisations PDF (339.57K)

 How sections 23 and 24 interact  For organisations PDF (328.54K)

Sections 26 to 29

These exemptions are available if complying with the request would prejudice or would be likely to prejudice the following:

defence (section 26); the effectiveness of the armed forces (section 26); international relations (section 27); relations between the UK government, the Scottish Executive, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Executive (section 28); Page 200 14 August 2017 - 4.9.39 11 the economy (section 29); or the financial interests of the UK, Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish administrations (section 29).

Section 27 also applies to confidential information obtained from other states, courts or international organisations.

All these exemptions are qualified by the public interest test.

For further information, read our more detailed guidance:

Further Reading

 Section 26 –Defence  For organisations PDF (278.14K)

 Section 27 – international relations  For organisations PDF (97.36K)

 Section 28 – relations within the UK  For organisations PDF (175.05K)

 Section 29 – the economy  For organisations PDF (326.95K)

Sections 30 and 31 – investigations and prejudice to law enforcement

The section 30 exemption applies to a specific category of information that a public authority currently holds or has ever held for the purposes of criminal investigations. It also applies to information obtained in certain other types of investigations, if it relates to obtaining information from confidential sources.

When information does not fall under either of these headings, but disclosure could still prejudice law enforcement, section 31 is the relevant exemption.

Section 31 only applies to information that does not fall into the categories in section 30. For this reason sections 30 and 31 are sometimes referred to as being mutually exclusive. Section 31 applies where complying with the request would prejudice or would be likely to prejudice various law enforcement purposes (listed in the Act) including preventing crime, administering justice, and collecting tax. It also protects certain other regulatory functions, for example those relating to health and safety and charity administration.

Both exemptions are qualified by the public interest test.

For further information, read our more detailed guidance:

Further Reading

Page 201 14 August 2017 - 4.9.39 12  Section 30 – investigations  For organisations PDF (366.6K)

 Section 31 – law enforcement  For organisations PDF (405.4K)

Section 32 – court records

This exemption applies to court records held by any authority (though courts themselves are not covered by the Act).

To claim this exemption, you must hold the information only because it was originally in a document created or used as part of legal proceedings, including an inquiry, inquest or arbitration.

This is an unusual exemption because the type of document is relevant, as well as the content and purpose of the information they hold.

This exemption is absolute, so you do not need to apply the public interest test. You also do not have to confirm or deny whether you hold any information that is or would fall within the definition above.

For further information, read our more detailed guidance:

Further Reading

 Section 32 – Court, inquiry or arbitration records  For organisations PDF (169.01K)

Section 33 – prejudice to audit functions

This exemption can only be used by bodies with audit functions. It applies where complying with the request would prejudice or would be likely to prejudice those functions.

This exemption is qualified by the public interest test.

For further information, read our more detailed guidance:

Further Reading

 Section 33 – public audit  For organisations PDF (283.61K)

 Impact of disclosure on the voluntary supply of information  For organisations PDF (287.1K)

Page 202 14 August 2017 - 4.9.39 13 Section 34 – parliamentary privilege

You can use this exemption to avoid an infringement of parliamentary privilege. Parliamentary privilege protects the independence of Parliament and gives each House of Parliament the exclusive right to oversee its own affairs. Parliament itself defines parliamentary privilege, and the Speaker of the House of Commons can issue a certificate confirming that this exemption applies; the Clerk of the Parliaments can do the same for the House of Lords.

This exemption is absolute, so you do not need to apply the public interest test.

For further information, read our more detailed guidance:

Further Reading

 Section 34 – Parliamentary privilege  For organisations PDF (290.24K)

Sections 35 and 36 – government policy and prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs

These two sections form a mutually exclusive pair of exemptions in the same way as section 30 and section 31.

The section 35 exemption can only be claimed by government departments or by the Welsh Assembly Government. It is a class-based exemption, for information relating to:

the formulation or development of government policy; communications between ministers; advice from the law officers; and the operation of any ministerial private office.

Section 35 is qualified by the public interest test.

For policy-related information held by other public authorities, or other information that falls outside this exemption but needs to be withheld for similar reasons, the section 36 exemption applies.

The section 36 exemption applies only to information that falls outside the scope of section 35. It applies where complying with the request would prejudice or would be likely to prejudice “the effective conduct of public affairs”. This includes, but is not limited to, situations where disclosure would inhibit free and frank advice and discussion.

This exemption is broad and can be applied to a range of situations.



Example A council refused to disclose a list of schools facing financial difficulties, because this could damage the schools’ ability to recruit pupils, as well as making schools less likely to co-operate and share Page 203 14 August 2017 - 4.9.39 14 financial information freely with the council (ICO decision notice FS50302293 ).

A university refused to disclose a complete list of staff email addresses. On a previous occasion when email addresses had been disclosed, this led to a security attack, as well as an increase in spam, phishing, and emails directed inappropriately (ICO decision notice FS50344341 ).

The Cabinet Office refused to release details of the discussions between political parties that took place between the general election and the formation of the coalition government. This was necessary to ensure that a stable government could be formed, as politicians needed to be able to freely discuss their differences as well as seek impartial advice from the civil service (ICO decision notice FS50350899 ).

Section 36 differs from all other prejudice exemptions in that the judgement about prejudice must be made by the legally authorised qualified person for that public authority. A list of qualified people is given in the Act, and others may have been designated. If you have not obtained the qualified person’s opinion, then you cannot rely on this exemption. The qualified person’s opinion must also be a “reasonable” opinion, and the Information Commissioner may decide that the section 36 exemption has not been properly applied if she finds that the opinion given isn’t reasonable.

In most cases, section 36 is a qualified exemption. This means that even if the qualified person considers that disclosure would cause harm, or would be likely to cause harm, you must still consider the public interest. However, for information held by the House of Commons or the House of Lords, section 36 is an absolute exemption so you do not need to apply the public interest test.

For further information, read our more detailed guidance:

Further Reading

 Section 35 - government policy For organisations PDF (403.76K)

Further Reading

 Section 36 - effective conductive of public affairs  For organisations PDF (349.2K)

Further Reading

 Section 36 - record of the qualified persons opinion  For organisations Word (166.59K)

Section 37 – communications with the royal family and the granting of honours

This exemption has been changed since the Freedom of Information Act was first published, so you should refer to an up-to-date copy at www.legislation.gov.uk .

Page 204 14 August 2017 - 4.9.39 15 It covers any information relating to communications with the royal family and information on granting honours. This exemption is absolute in relation to communications with the monarch, the heir to the throne, and the second in line of succession to the throne, so the public interest test does not need to be applied in these cases.

All other information under the scope of this exemption is qualified, so the public interest test must be applied.

For further information, read our more detailed guidance:

Further Reading

 Section 37 – communications with Her Majesty and the awarding of honours  For organisations PDF (209.51K)

Section 38 – endangering health and safety

You can apply the section 38 exemption if complying with the request would or would be likely to endanger anyone’s physical or mental health or safety. In deciding whether you can apply this exemption, you should use the same test as you would for prejudice. This exemption is qualified by the public interest test.

For further information, read our more detailed guidance:

Further Reading

 Health and safety (section 38)  For organisations PDF (288.43K)

Section 39 – environmental information

You should deal with any request that falls within the scope of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 under those Regulations. This exemption confirms that, in practice, you do not also need to consider such requests under the Freedom of Information Act.

Only public authorities that are covered by the Regulations can rely on this exemption. A small number of public authorities, including the BBC and other public service broadcasters, are not subject to the Environmental Information Regulations. They should handle requests for environmental information under the Freedom of Information Act.

This exemption is qualified by the public interest test, but because you must handle this type of request under the Environmental Information Regulations, it is hard to imagine when it would be in the public interest to also consider it under the Freedom of Information Act.

Further Reading

 Section 39 – environmental information  Page 205 14 August 2017 - 4.9.39 16 For organisations PDF (229.34K)

Section 40(1) – personal information of the requester

The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) came into effect on 25 May 2018. The Data Protection Act 1998 will be replaced in the UK with the Data Protection Act 2018. Our approach to considering the disclosure of personal data under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) and the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR) remains largely the same and our existing guidance is still of use. We will amend it in due course. However, there are a few key points to consider. The definition of personal data and sensitive personal data have changed, as have the data protection principles and the rights of subject access. Please see our Guide to the General Data Protection Regulation for more detailed information. If the information constitutes the personal data of third parties, public authorities should consider whether disclosure would breach the data protection principles. (In the case of special category or criminal offence data, public authorities must also satisfy one of the conditions listed in Article 9 of the GDPR). Principle (a) under Article 5 is the most applicable. When considering whether disclosure of information is a breach of principle (a), a public authority should first consider whether disclosure is lawful and then whether it is fair. The lawful basis that is most likely to be relevant is legitimate interests under Article 6.1(f). The Data Protection Act 2018 amends FOIA and the EIR so that the legitimate interests lawful basis is applicable to public authorities when they are considering disclosure. Competent authorities for the purposes of the law enforcement provisions (law enforcement bodies) should consider the application of principle (a) of the GDPR for disclosures under FOIA and the EIR.

This exemption confirms that you should treat any request made by an individual for their own personal data as a subject access request under the Data Protection Act 1998. You should apply this to any part of the request that is for the requester’s own personal data. They should not be required to make a second, separate subject access request for these parts of their request. See our Guide to Data Protection – the rights of individuals (principle 6) for advice on how to handle subject access requests.

If the information contains some of the requester’s personal data plus other non-personal information, then you will need to consider releasing some of the information under the Data Protection Act and some under the Freedom of Information Act.

This exemption is absolute, so you do not need to apply the public interest test.

Requested information may involve the personal data of both the requester and others. For further information, read our guidance:

Further Reading

 Personal data of both the requester and others  For organisations PDF (84.54K) Page 206 14 August 2017 - 4.9.39 17 Section 40(2) – data protection

This exemption covers the personal data of third parties (anyone other than the requester) where complying with the request would breach any of the principles in the Data Protection Act.

If you wish to rely on this exemption, you need to refer to the Data Protection Act as the data protection principles are not set out in the Freedom of Information Act. More details can be found in our Guide to Data Protection – data protection principles.

This exemption can only apply to information about people who are living; you cannot use it to protect information about people who have died.

The most common reason for refusing information under this exemption is that it would be unfair to the individual concerned. Section 40(2) is an absolute exemption, so you do not need to apply the public interest test. However, you may need to consider the public interest when applying the data protection principles.

Section 40 includes other provisions for people’s data protection rights, and these provisions are qualified by a public interest test.

For further information, read our more detailed guidance:

Further reading

 Section 40 – personal information  For organisations PDF (265.07K)

 Section 40 – requests for personal data about public authority employees  For organisations PDF (209.04K)

 Access to information held in complaints files  For organisations PDF (279.22K)

 Section 40 – information exempt from the subject access right  For organisations PDF (109.13K)

 Section 40 – neither confirm nor deny in relation to personal data  For organisations PDF (120.69K)

 Outsourcing and freedom of information  For organisations PDF (342.19K)

 How to disclose information safely – removing personal data from information requests and Page 207 14 August 2017 - 4.9.39 18 datasets  For organisations PDF (966.1K)

Section 41 – confidentiality

This exemption applies if the following two conditions are satisfied:

you received the information from someone else; and complying with the request would be a breach of confidence that is actionable (further information about what is meant by actionable is provided in our detailed guidance below).

You cannot apply this exemption to information you have generated within your organisation, even if it is marked “confidential”. However, you can claim it for information you originally received from someone else but then included in your own records.

To rely on this exemption, you must apply the legal principles of the common law test of confidence, which is a well established though developing area of law.

This exemption is absolute so you do not need to apply the public interest test. However, you will still need to consider the public interest in disclosure, because the law of confidence recognises that a breach of confidence may not be actionable when there is an overriding public interest in disclosure.

You should carefully consider how you use confidentiality clauses in contracts with third parties and set reasonable levels of expectations about what may be disclosed.

For further information, read our more detailed guidance:

Further Reading

 Section 41 – information provided in confidence  For organisations PDF (371.33K)

 Impact of disclosure on the voluntary supply of information  For organisations PDF (287.1K)

 Outsourcing and freedom of information  For organisations PDF (342.19K)

Section 42 – legal professional privilege

This applies whenever complying with a request would reveal information that is subject to ‘legal professional privilege’ (LPP) or the equivalent Scottish rules. LPP protects information shared between a client and their professional legal advisor (solicitor or barrister, including in-house lawyers) for the purposes of obtaining legal advice or for ongoing or proposed legal action. These long-established rules exist to ensure people are confident they can be completely frank and candid with their legal adviser when obtaining legal advice, without fear of disclosure. Page 208 14 August 2017 - 4.9.39 19 This exemption is qualified by the public interest test.

For further information, read our more detailed guidance:

Further Reading

 Section 42 – legal professional privilege  For organisations PDF (332.33K)

Section 43 – trade secrets and prejudice to commercial interests

This exemption covers two situations:

when information constitutes a trade secret (such as the recipe for a branded product); or when complying with the request would prejudice or would be likely to prejudice someone’s commercial interests.

Both parts of this exemption are qualified by the public interest test.

For further information, read our more detailed guidance:

Further Reading

 Section 43 – commercial interest  For organisations PDF (310.6K)

 Outsourcing and freedom of information  For organisations PDF (342.19K)

Section 44 – prohibitions on disclosure

You can apply this exemption if complying with a request for information:

is not allowed under law; would be contrary to an obligation under EU law; or would constitute contempt of court.

This exemption is often used by regulators. For example, the Information Commissioner is prohibited by section 59 of the Data Protection Act from disclosing certain information she has obtained in the course of her duties, except in specified circumstances.

The Freedom of Information Act does not override other laws that prevent disclosure, which we call ‘statutory bars’.

This exemption is absolute, so you do not need to apply the public interest test, but bear in mind that some statutory bars may refer to the public interest. Page 209 14 August 2017 - 4.9.39 20 For further information, read our more detailed guidance:

Further Reading

 Section 44 - prohibitions on disclosure  For organisations PDF (304.44K)

 Impact of disclosure on voluntary supply of information  For organisations PDF (287.1K)

Can we withhold information about people who have died?

The Data Protection Act does not cover information about people who have died, so you cannot rely on a section 40 exemption to withhold this type of information.

This may be a particular issue if you are a public authority that holds sensitive information such as health or social care records. Where you receive a request for this kind of information about someone who has died, the most appropriate exemption is likely to be section 41 (confidentiality). This is because the information would originally have been provided to a healthcare practitioner or social worker in confidence, and we consider this duty of confidentiality to extend beyond death.

Information about people who have died is likely to be covered by an exemption, because the Freedom of Information Act is about disclosure ‘to the world’ and it would often be inappropriate to make this type of information public. However, some requesters may have rights that allow them personally to access the information. For instance, the Access to Health Records Act 1990 gives the personal representative of the deceased (eg the executor of their will) the right to access their medical records. If you receive a request from someone who has the right to access the records in this way, you can refuse the request under section 21 (reasonably accessible) and handle the request under the Access to Health Records Act.

For further information, read our more detailed guidance:

Further Reading

 Information about the deceased  For organisations PDF (253.53K)

Can we have extra time to consider exemptions?

No, but if the exemption is qualified you can have extra time to consider the public interest test. In doing so you must:

identify the relevant exemption(s) before you can claim any extra time for the public interest test; and write and let the requester know why you are claiming extra time.

Page 210 14 August 2017 - 4.9.39 21 When and how do we apply the public interest test?

If the exemption you wish to apply is qualified, then you will need to do a public interest test, even if you know the exemption applies.

If you think that you may need to claim an exclusion from the duty to confirm or deny, then you will need to consider the public interest test for this duty. You will need to do this separately from the public interest test for the duty to provide information.

For ‘neither confirm nor deny’ cases (NCND) the public interest test involves weighing the public interest in confirming whether or not information is held against the public interest in refusing to do this. The public interest in maintaining the exclusion from the duty to confirm or deny would have to outweigh the public interest in confirming or denying that information is held, in order to justify an NCND response.

Similarly, when considering whether you should disclose information, you will need to weigh the public interest in disclosure against the public interest in maintaining the exemption. You must bear in mind that the principle behind the Act is to release information unless there is a good reason not to. To justify withholding information, the public interest in maintaining the exemption would have to outweigh the public interest in disclosure.

Note that the wording of the test refers to the public interest in maintaining the exemption (or exclusion). In other words, you cannot consider all the arguments for withholding the information (or refusing to confirm whether it is held), only those which are inherent in the exemption or exclusion ie relate directly to what it is designed to protect.



Example A government department is seeking to rely on section 35 to withhold information relating to the development of a controversial policy.

It argues that disclosure would: a) have a negative impact on the ongoing discussions about this policy; b) discourage ministers and civil servants from openly debating controversial or unpopular options when discussing similar policies in the future; c) cause stress and upset to the people involved; d) potentially lead to threats or harassment.

While a) and b) are legitimate public interest considerations for this exemption, c) and d) are not. Instead, they may suggest that section 38 (health and safety) or section 40 (data protection) might be relevant.

You can withhold information only if it is covered by one of the exemptions and, for qualified exemptions, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosure. You must follow the steps in this order, so you cannot withhold information because you think it would be against the public interest without first identifying a specific exemption.

For further information, read our more detailed guidance:

Page 211 14 August 2017 - 4.9.39 22 Further Reading

 The public interest test  For organisations PDF (305.06K)

 Information in the public domain (if some information is already publicly available)  For organisations PDF (372.11K)

How much extra time can we have to consider the public interest test?

The law says you can have a “reasonable” extension of time to consider the public interest test. We consider that this should normally be no more than an extra 20 working days, which is 40 working days in total to deal with the request. Any extension beyond this time should be exceptional and you must be able to justify it.

To claim this extra time, you must:

contact the requester in writing within the standard time for compliance; specify which exemption(s) you are seeking to rely on; and give an estimate of when you will have completed the public interest test.

You must identify the relevant exemptions and ensure they can be applied in this case, for example, by considering the prejudice test before you do this. You cannot use the extra time for considering whether an exemption applies. You should release any information that is not covered by an exemption within the standard time.

When you have come to a conclusion on the balance of the public interest, you should:

disclose the information; or write to the requester explaining why you have found that the public interest favours maintaining the exemption.

Is there anything else we need to know about exemptions?

Certain exemptions do not apply to historical records. Originally, a historical record was a record over 30 years old, although this has now been amended to 20 years by the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010. This reduction is being phased in gradually over 10 years. In effect, from the end of 2013 the time limit is 29 years. It will reduce by another year every year until it reaches 20 years at the end of 2022. Other exemptions expire after 60 or 100 years. A full list of these can be found in section 63 of the Act.

When deciding whether or not an exemption applies, you will usually need to consider what information is already in the public domain. If the requested information or similar information is already publicly available, then this may affect:

whether the requested disclosure will still cause prejudice; whether the test for applying a class-based exemption is still met; Page 212 14 August 2017 - 4.9.39 23 where the balance of the public interest lies.

These will be important considerations in many cases.

For further information, read our more detailed guidance:

Further Reading

 Information in the public domain  For organisations PDF (372.11K)

If we are relying on an exemption to refuse the request, what do we need to tell the requester?

If you are relying on an exemption, you must issue a written refusal notice within the standard time for compliance, specifying which exemptions you are relying on and why.

If you have already done a public interest test, you should explain why you have reached the conclusion that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosure.

If you are claiming extra time to consider the public interest test, you will not be able to give a final refusal notice at this stage, but you should explain which exemptions you are relying on. If your final decision is to withhold all or part of the information, you will need to send a second refusal notice to explain your conclusion on the public interest test.

If you are withholding information but are still required to reveal that you hold the information, you should also remember to do this.

What do we have to include in a refusal notice?

You must refuse requests in writing promptly or within 20 working days (or the standard time for compliance) of receiving it.

In the refusal notice you should:

explain what provision of the Act you are relying on to refuse the request and why; give details of any internal review (complaints) procedure you offer or state that you do not have one; and explain the requester’s right to complain to the ICO, including contact details for this.

For further information, read our more detailed guidance:

Further Reading

 Refusing a request: writing a refusal notice  For organisations PDF (257.5K)

Page 213 14 August 2017 - 4.9.39 24 What if we are withholding only parts of a document?

Often you can withhold only some of the information requested. In many cases, you can disclose some sections of a document but not others, or you may be able to release documents after having removed certain names, figures or other sensitive details (called ‘redaction’).

The Act does not lay down any rules about redaction. The following are guidelines for good practice.

Make sure redaction is not reversible. Words can sometimes be seen through black marker pen or correction fluid. On an electronic document, it is sometimes possible to reverse changes or to recover an earlier version to reveal the withheld information. Ensure that staff responding to requests understand how to use common software formats, and how to strip out any sensitive information. Take advice from IT professionals if necessary. In particular, take care when using pivot tables to anonymise data in a spreadsheet. The spreadsheet will usually still contain the detailed source data, even if this is hidden and not immediately visible at first glance. Consider converting the spreadsheet to a plain text format (such as CSV) if necessary. Give an indication of how much text you have redacted and where from. If possible, indicate which sections you removed using which exemption. Provide as much meaningful information as possible. For example, when redacting names you may still be able to give an indication of the person’s role, or which pieces of correspondence came from the same person. As far as possible, ensure that what you provide makes sense. If you have redacted so much that the document is unreadable, consider what else you can do to make the information understandable and useful for the requester. Keep a copy of both the redacted and unredacted versions so that you know what you have released and what you have refused, if the requester complains.

For further information, read our more detailed guidance:

Further Reading

 How to disclose information safely – removing personal data from information requests and datasets  For organisations PDF (966.1K)

You may also wish to refer to the Redaction Toolkit  produced by the National Archives.

What if the requester is unhappy with the outcome?

Under the Act, there is no obligation for an authority to provide a complaints process. However, it is good practice (under the section 45 code of practice) and most public authorities choose to do so.

If you do have a complaints procedure, also known as an internal review, you should:

ensure the procedure is triggered whenever a requester expresses dissatisfaction with the outcome; make sure it is a straightforward, single-stage process;

Page 214 14 August 2017 - 4.9.39 25 make a fresh decision based on all the available evidence that is relevant to the date of the request, not just a review of the first decision; ensure the review is done by someone who did not deal with the request, where possible, and preferably by a more senior member of staff; and ensure the review takes no longer than 20 working days in most cases, or 40 in exceptional circumstances.

When issuing a refusal notice, you should state whether you have an internal review procedure and how to access it. If a requester complains even when you have not refused a request, you should carry out an internal review if they:

disagree with your interpretation of their request; believe you hold more information than you have disclosed; or are still waiting for a response and are unhappy with the delay.

Even if your internal review upholds your original decision (that, as at the date of the request, the information was exempt from disclosure) you may wish to release further information if circumstances have changed and your original concerns about disclosure no longer apply. You are not obliged to do this but it may resolve matters for the requester and reduce the likelihood of them making a complaint to the Information Commissioner if you do.

Page 215 14 August 2017 - 4.9.39 26

Freedom of Information Code of Practice

4 July 2018

1 Page 216

[back of cover – for printed publications, leave this page blank]

2 Page 217

Freedom of Information Code of Practice

This information is available on the GOV.UK website at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/freedom-of-information-code- of-practice]

3 Page 218

© Crown copyright 2018 Produced by Cabinet Office

You may re-use this information (excluding logos) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence. To view this licence, visit http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/ or email: [email protected]

Where we have identified any third party copyright material you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned.

Alternative format versions of this report are available on request from the Cabinet Office FOI Policy Team.

4 Page 219

Contents

Foreword 7

Introduction 8

1. Right of Access 9

2. Advice and assistance 14

3. Consultation with Third Parties 16

4. Time limits for responding to requests 17

5. Internal reviews 19

6. Cost limit 21

7. Vexatious requests 23

8. Publication Schemes 27

9. Transparency and confidentiality obligations in contracts and outsourced services 30

10. Communicating with a requester 33

11. Datasets 34

Annex A – Table of FOI Act Exemption Clauses 37

Annex B – Reuse of datasets 39

5 Page 220

[back of contents page – for printed publications, leave this page blank]

6 Page 221

Foreword

Freedom of Information is one of the pillars upon which open government operates. The Government is committed to supporting the effective operation of the Freedom of Information Act. For any Freedom of Information regime to be truly effective it is important that both its users and those subject to it have faith in it.

This Code of Practice provides guidance for public authorities on best practice in meeting their responsibilities under Part I of the Act. It sets the standard for all public authorities when considering how to respond to Freedom of Information requests.

The Information Commissioner also has a statutory duty to promote good practice by public authorities, including following this Code of Practice. In addition to this Code of Practice, public authorities should also consult the Commissioner’s own guidance regarding best practice which can be found at www.ico.org.uk.

The Commissioner can issue practice recommendations where he or she considers that public authorities have not conformed with the guidance set out in this Code. The Commissioner can also refer to non-compliance with the Code in decision and enforcement notices.

This foreword does not form part of the Code itself.

7 Page 222

Introduction

This Code of Practice provides guidance to public authorities on the discharge of their functions and responsibilities under Part I (Access to information held by public authorities) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (“the Act’). It is issued under section 45 of the Act.

8 Page 223

1. Right of Access

Information

1.1 The Freedom of Information (FOI) Act 2000 (‘the Act’) gives a right of access to information. Any person who makes a request to a public authority for information is entitled:

• To be informed in writing by a public authority whether it holds information meeting the description set out in the request; and • To have information the public authority holds relating to the request communicated to them.

These rights apply unless an exemption in Part II of the Act applies, or the request can be refused under sections 12 or 14, as set out in the legislation.

1.2 Section 84 of the Act defines the ‘information’ a public authority can be asked to provide under the Act. It makes clear that it means recorded information held in any form, electronic or paper.

1.3 Public authorities are not required to create new information in order to comply with a request for information under the Act. They only need to consider information already in existence at the time a request is received.

1.4 A request to a public authority for recorded information will be treated as a request under the Act, other than:

• information given out as part of routine business, for example, standard responses to general enquiries; • a request for environmental information; or • the requester’s own personal data.

1.5 A request for environmental information only should be dealt with under the Environmental Information Regulations 20041, and a request for a person’s own personal data should be dealt with under the subject access provisions of the Data Protection Act 2018. Sometimes it may be necessary to consider a request under more than one access regime.

1.6 The Act provides a right to information. Disclosing existing documents will often be the most straightforward way of providing information. However, in other cases it may be

1 Public authorities may wish to refer to the Information Commissioner’s Regulation 16 Code of Practice: Discharge of Obligations of Public Authorities under the EIR. 9 Page 224

appropriate to extract the relevant information for disclosure and put in a single document rather than redact the existing document that contains it.

1.7 There will be occasions where a request is made under the Act but does not in fact meet the above description of being a request for recorded information. This may include requests for explanations, clarification of policy, comments on the public authority’s business, and any other correspondence that does not follow the definition of a valid request in section 8. It is best practice to provide an applicant with an explanation of why their request will not be treated under the Act if this is the case and to respond to their correspondence through other channels as appropriate. It is open to the applicant to appeal the handling of their correspondence to the Information Commissioner’s Office.

Information held

1.8 In order to respond to a request for information public authorities need to consider whether the requested information is ‘held’ for the purposes of the Act. This is because there may be instances when a public authority possesses information, either electronically or in physical copy, that does not meet the criteria for information ‘held’ set out in the Act and to which the obligations set out in the Act therefore do not apply.

1.9 Section 3(2) sets out the criteria for when information is held by a public authority for the purposes of the Act. This includes:

• information held by a public authority at the time of the request; • information stored in off-site servers or cloud storage; and • information held by other organisations and authorities on behalf of the public authority including, for example, off-site storage or information provided to lawyers for the purposes of litigation.

1.10 Information is ‘held’ by the public authority if it is retained for the purposes of the public authority’s business. Purely personal, political, constituency, or trade union information, for example, will not be ‘held’ for the purposes of the Act and so will not be relevant for the purposes of the request. Where a public authority holds or stores information solely on behalf of another person or body that material will also not be ‘held’ by that authority for the purposes of the Act.

1.11 Information created after a request is received is not within the scope of the application and is therefore not “held” for the purposes of the Act. A search for information which has been deleted from a public authority’s records before a request is received, and is only held in electronic back up files, should generally be regarded as not being held2.

2 Public authorities should make sure they are also aware of the guidance provided in the Lord Chancellor’s Code of Practice on the management of records issued under section 46 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

10 Page 225

1.12 Public authorities need to search for requested information in order to communicate to the applicant whether the information they are seeking is held or not held by that public authority. These searches should be conducted in a reasonable and intelligent way based on an understanding of how the public authority manages its records. Public authorities should concentrate their efforts on areas most likely to hold the requested information. If a reasonable search in the areas most likely to hold the requested information does not reveal the information sought, the public authority may consider that on the balance of probabilities the information is not held.

Section 77 (Offence of altering records etc. with intent to prevent disclosure)

1.13 Public authorities should make sure that their staff are aware that under section 77 of the Act it is a criminal offence to alter, deface, block, erase, destroy or conceal any information held by the public authority with the intention of preventing disclosure following a request under the Act for the information.

Valid requests

1.14 Section 8 sets out the criteria for what constitutes a valid request under the Act:

• Section 8(1)(a) requires that a request for information must be made in writing. This can either be in hard copy or electronically; • Section 8(1)(b) requires that a request for information must state the name of the applicant and an address for correspondence. Applicants must provide their real name and not use a pseudonym. Both email and postal addresses are acceptable; • Section 8(1)(c) requires that a request for information must also adequately describe the information sought.

1.15 Public authorities do not have to comply with requests that do not meet the requirements set out in section 8. It is good practice to write to the applicant and explain this if this is the case.

1.16 A request submitted through social media will be valid where it meets the requirements of section 8 by providing an applicant’s name and address for correspondence and a clear request for information. Addresses for correspondence can take the form of an email address or a unique name or identifier on a social media platform (for example a Twitter handle), as well as postal addresses. Requests must be addressed directly to the public authority the applicant is seeking information from, which includes elected officials and appointed representatives, when acting in their formal capacity. In order to be addressed directly, a public authority must have a formal, monitorable presence on the particular platform being used by an applicant.

11 Page 226

1.17 Requests submitted in a foreign language are not generally considered valid requests. Public authorities are not expected to obtain translations of suspected requests for information. It is good practice when receiving a request in a foreign language to ask the applicant to provide their request in English or Welsh in order for the request to be processed.

Fees

1.18 It is open to public authorities, as a result of Regulations made under sections 9 and 13 of the Act, to charge for the cost of providing information requested under the Act. However, the majority of public authorities do not currently do so. It is also only possible to charge where information will be released. It is not possible for public authorities to charge for requests where, for example, information is being withheld under exemptions.

1.19 Where the public authority intends to charge for the cost of providing information, they should send a fees notice stating the amount to be paid, including how this has been calculated, as soon as possible within the 20 working day response period. The notice should inform applicants:

• that the 20 working day period for responding to the request will be paused until payment is received (it is reasonable to set a deadline of three months in which the fee should be paid); • how to pay the fee; and • their rights of complaint via internal review and to the Information Commissioner about the fee levied.

1.20 Public authorities may charge for:

• actual production expenses (e.g. redacting exempt information, printing or photocopying); • transmission costs (e.g. postage); and • complying with the applicant’s preferences about the format in which they would like to receive the information (section 11) (e.g. scanning to a CD).

1.21 It is not possible to charge for any staff time where the cost of compliance falls below the cost limit (see Chapter 6). There is no obligation to comply with any request exceeding the cost limit. However, should a public authority decide to respond to a request that exceeds the cost limit on a voluntary basis it can charge for the staff time needed to do so. In such circumstances staff time is chargeable at a standard rate, including the cost of making redactions (but only the physical cost of making redactions and not staff time for considering whether exemptions apply), to be included in the initial fees notice.

1.22 Public authorities may already charge for supplying specific categories of information on a different statutory basis to the fees they are allowed to charge under the Act. They can continue to do this even when these charges are higher than the fees that can be charged 12 Page 227

under the Act. However, public authorities may not charge where a statutory obligation to provide information free of charge already exists.

1.23 Once the fee is received, the public authority should process it promptly and inform the applicant of the revised 20 working day response deadline. It is permissible to wait until a cheque clears before recommencing work. Should a public authority underestimate the costs to be charged, it should not issue a second fees notice and should bear the additional cost itself.

Means of communication

1.24 Section 11 of the Act says that if an applicant states a preference for receiving information in a specific format a public authority shall, if they are required to disclose information, aim to meet this preference as far as is reasonably practicable. Applicants may, for instance, request to receive the information in an electronic or hard copy format.

1.25 When considering whether it is reasonable to meet an applicant’s wishes under section 11, public authorities may, for instance, consider the cost and complexity of providing information in the format requested and the resources they have available.

1.26 If an applicant doesn’t state a preference, public authorities can communicate information by “any means which are reasonable in the circumstances” as set out in section 11(4). For example, where the platform used by an applicant to make their request imposes restrictions on the format of a response (for example, Twitter restricts the length of a response and does not allow the direct attachment of documents) it would be reasonable to respond in another format.

1.27 Guidance on additional requirements in relation to datasets is provided in Chapter 11 and for model communications in Chapter 10.

13 Page 228

2. Advice and assistance

2.1 Section 16 of the Act sets out a duty for public authorities to provide reasonable advice and assistance to applicants requesting information. This duty to advise and assist is enforceable by the Information Commissioner. If a public authority does not meet this duty, the Commissioner may issue a decision notice under section 50, or an enforcement notice under section 52.

2.2 Public authorities should bear in mind that other Acts of Parliament may also be relevant to the way in which they provide advice and assistance to applicants or potential applicants, for example, compliance with duties under the Equality Act 2010.

Advice and assistance to prospective requesters

2.3 Public authorities should, as a matter of best practice, publish a postal address and email address (or appropriate online alternative) to which applicants can send requests for information or for assistance.

2.4 There is no requirement for a request for recorded information specifically to mention the Act in order to be a valid FOI request. Where an applicant asks a public authority to disclose recorded information but does not specifically mention the Act, and the request complies with section 8 (see paragraph 1.14 above), the public authority should consider the request under the Act in any case and let the applicant know that this is how the request is being handled. Where a person seeks to make a request orally they should be advised to put their application in writing in accordance with section 8(1)(a) of the Act.

2.5 There may be circumstances where a person is unable to frame their request in writing, for example owing to a disability. In these instances the public authority should make sure that assistance is given to enable them to make a request for information. For example, advising the person that another person or agency (such as a Citizens Advice Bureau) may be able to assist them with the application, or make the application on their behalf. Public authorities may also consider, in exceptional circumstances, offering to take a note of the application over the telephone and sending the note to the applicant for confirmation. Once verified by the applicant this would constitute a written request for information and the statutory time limit for reply would begin when the written confirmation was received.

Clarifying the request

2.6 There may be instances when a public authority needs to contact an applicant to seek clarification either regarding their name or the information they are seeking in order for the request they have made to meet the requirements set out in section 8 of the Act.

14 Page 229

2.7 If a public authority considers the applicant has not provided their real name the public authority can make the applicant aware it does not intend to respond to the request until further information is received from the applicant. For example, this may be the case when an applicant appears to have used a pseudonym rather than their own name.

2.8 There may also be occasions when a request is not clear enough to adequately describe the information sought by the applicant in such a way that the public authority can conduct a search for it. In these cases, public authorities may ask for more detail to enable them to identify the information sought.

2.9 Where a public authority asks for further information or clarification to enable the requester to meet the requirements of section 8, the 20 working day response period will not start until a satisfactory reply constituting a valid request is received. Letters should make clear that if no response is received the request will be considered closed by the public authority. Two months would be an appropriate length of time to wait to receive clarification before closing a request.

Reducing the cost of a request

2.10 Where it is estimated the cost of answering a request would exceed the “cost limit” beyond which the public authority is not required to answer a request (and the authority is not prepared to answer it), public authorities should provide applicants with advice and assistance to help them reframe or refocus their request with a view to bringing it within the costs limit. Further guidance on the appropriate “cost limit” can be found in Chapter 6.

Transferring requests for information

2.11 There will be occasions when a public authority is not able to comply with a request (or to comply with it in full) because it does not hold the information requested.

2.12 In most cases where a public authority does not hold the information, but thinks that another public authority does, they should respond to the applicant to inform them that the requested information is not held by them, and that it may be held by another public authority. The public authority should, as best practice where they can, provide the contact details for the public authority they believe holds the requested information.

2.13 Where the public authority who originally received the request wishes to ask a different public authority directly to deal with the request by transferring it to them, this should only be done with the applicant’s agreement in case the requester objects to their details being passed on. This is because public authorities have a duty to respond to a requester and confirm whether or not they hold information in scope of the request as set out in paragraph 2.12 above.

15 Page 230

3. Consultation with Third Parties

3.1 There will be circumstances when a public authority should consult third parties about information held in scope of a request in order to consider whether information is suitable for disclosure. These may include:

• when requests for information relate to persons or bodies who are not the applicant and/or the public authority; or • when disclosure of information is likely to affect the interests of persons or bodies who are not the applicant or the authority.

3.2 Public authorities may want to directly consult third parties in these circumstances particularly if, for example, there are contractual obligations which require consultation before information is released. In other circumstances it may be good practice to consult third parties, for example, where a public authority proposes to disclose information relating to third parties, or information which is likely to affect their business or private interests.

3.3 Consultation will often be necessary because third parties who have created or provided the information may have a better understanding of its sensitivity than the public authority. On this basis it is important the public authority understands the views provided by the third party and gives them appropriate weight. The expert view of a third party may, as long as it is reasonable, be helpful if the applicant appeals against any refusal. The views of third parties will be especially relevant in cases where it is necessary to consider the prejudice and public interest tests.

3.4 Public authorities are not required to accept views provided to them from third parties about whether or not information should be released. It is ultimately for the public authority handling the request to take the final decision on release following any consultation it undertakes.

3.5 If a decision is made to release information following consultation with a third party it will generally be best practice to give the third party advance notice or to draw it to their attention as soon as possible.

3.6 There may be occasions where information being considered by a public authority relates to a large number of third parties. If a public authority intends to release information that relates to a large number of third parties it may be helpful to contact a representative organisation who can express views on these parties’ behalf rather than contacting each third party individually. Alternatively, if no representative organisation exists, public authorities can also consider only notifying or consulting a representative sample of third parties regarding the disclosure of information, but these will be case by case judgements for the relevant public authority.

16 Page 231

4. Time limits for responding to requests

Statutory deadlines

4.1 The statutory deadlines for public authorities to respond to requests for information are set out in section 10(1) of the Act. These make clear that public authorities must respond to requests for information promptly and within 20 working days following the date of receipt of the request.

4.2 The date on which a request is received is the day on which it arrives or, if this is not a working day, the first working day following its arrival. Non-working days include weekends and public holidays.

4.3 Some public authorities are subject to different deadlines as a result of regulations made under section 10(4) of the Act. For example, maintained schools, academies, archives, the armed forces (frontline units) and information held outside the United Kingdom at for example, embassies, have had the initial 20 working day deadline extended in certain circumstances as they may sometimes find it difficult to deal with requests under the standard deadlines. These initial deadlines cannot go beyond 60 working days following receipt of a request, except where payment of a fee is awaited (paragraph 1.19).

Public interest test extensions

4.4 Public authorities may exceed the 20 working day deadline (or, where permitted by section 10(4) regulations, longer) if information falls within the scope of a qualified exemption and additional time is required to consider the public interest test. This is set out in Section 10(3) of the Act. This is normally described as a public interest test extension.

4.5 An extension is permitted “until such time as is reasonable in the circumstances”, taking account, for example, of where the information is especially complex or voluminous, or where a public authority needs to consult third parties.

4.6 In general, it is best practice for an extension to be for no more than a further 20 working days although this will depend on the circumstances of the case, including again the complexity and volume of the material, and in some circumstances a longer extension may be appropriate.

4.7 Where public authorities decide a public interest test extension is required they should write to the applicant to inform them that this is the case, stating which exemption(s) it is rely on, and why, and ideally provide the applicant with a new deadline for when they should

17 Page 232

receive their response. If the deadline has to be further extended they should write again to the applicant.

18 Page 233

5. Internal reviews

5.1 It is best practice for each public authority to have a procedure in place for dealing with disputes about its handling of requests for information. These disputes will usually be dealt with as a request for an “internal review” of the original decision. Public authorities should distinguish between a request for an internal review, which seeks to challenge either the outcome or the process of the handling of the initial response, and a general complaint, which should be handled as general correspondence.

5.2 Public authorities are obliged, under section 17(7) of the Act, when responding to a request for information, to notify applicants of whether they have an internal review process and, if they do, to set out the details of their review procedures, including details of how applicants request an internal review. They should also inform the applicant of their right to complain to the Information Commissioner under section 50 if they are still dissatisfied following the outcome of the public authority's internal review.

5.3 It is usual practice to accept a request for an internal review made within 40 working days from the date a public authority has issued an initial response to a request and this should be made clear in that response to the applicant. Public authorities are not obliged to accept internal reviews after this date. Internal review requests should be made in writing to a public authority.

5.4 Requests for internal review should be acknowledged and the applicant informed of the target date for responding. This should normally be within 20 working days of receipt.

5.5 If an internal review is complex, requires consultation with third parties or the relevant information is of a high volume, public authorities may need longer than 20 working days to consider the issues and respond. In these instances, the public authority should inform the applicant and provide a reasonable target date by which they will be able to respond to the internal review. It is best practice for this to be no more than an additional 20 working days, although there will sometimes be legitimate reasons why a longer extension is needed.

5.6 In the event that clarification of an internal review request is required from the applicant, the normal 20 working day time period will not begin until it is received.

5.7 Public authorities who are allowed to exceed the normal 20 working day deadline as a result of regulations made under section 10(4), for example maintained schools and the armed forces, should apply the same time scales to internal reviews.

5.8 The internal review procedure should provide a fair and thorough review of procedures and decisions taken in relation to the Act. This includes decisions taken about where the public interest lies if a qualified exemption has been used. It might also include applying a different or additional exemption(s).

19 Page 234

5.9 It is best practice, wherever possible, for the internal review to be undertaken by someone other than the person who took the original decision. The public authority should in all cases re-evaluate their handling of the request, and pay particular attention to concerns raised by the applicant.

5.10 The applicant should be informed of the outcome of their internal review and a record should be kept of all such reviews and the final decision made.

5.11 If the outcome of an internal review is a decision that information previously withheld should now be disclosed, the information should normally be provided at the same time as the applicant is informed of the outcome of the review. If this is not possible, the applicant should be informed how soon the information will be provided.

5.12 In responding to a request for an internal review, the applicant should again be informed of their right to apply to the Information Commissioner for a review of whether the public authority has met the requirements of the Act.

20 Page 235

6. Cost limit

6.1 Section 12 of the Act allows public authorities to refuse to deal with any requests where they estimate that responding to the request would exceed the “appropriate limit”, or ‘cost limit’ as it is more commonly known.

6.2 If a public authority calculates that responding to a request will take it over the cost limit it is not obliged to provide a substantive response. The cost limit is calculated at a flat rate of £25 per hour. For central government departments the cost limit is £600 (24 hours) and for all other public authorities is £450 (18 hours).

6.3 Public authorities can only include certain activities when estimating whether responding to a request would breach the cost limit. These are:

• establishing whether information is held; • locating and retrieving information; and • extracting relevant information from the document containing it.

6.4 Other factors including redaction time or any other expenses likely to occur in cost limit calculations cannot be included when estimating whether the response would exceed the cost limit.

6.5 When calculating the cost limit public authorities can aggregate requests which ask for the same or similar information and are received within a 60 working day period. These requests can either be from the same person or a group of people acting together.

6.6 Public authorities do not have to search for information in scope of a request until the cost limit is reached, even if the applicant requests that they do so. If responding to one part of a request would exceed the cost limit, public authorities do not have to provide a response to any other parts of the request.

6.7 The cost limit can be applied on the basis of a reasonable estimate at the time the request is received. Public authorities are not under any obligation to make a precise calculation although estimates should be sensible and realistic.

6.8 Public authorities should generally focus their attention on the locations most likely to hold the relevant information. Searches may take longer, for example, where information is only held in paper records or they are organised in a way that does not lend itself to the request in question. In some cases it may be helpful to conduct a sampling exercise to help establish likely cost but this is not essential.

6.9 Where a request is refused under section 12, public authorities should consider what advice and assistance can be provided to help the applicant reframe or refocus their request

21 Page 236

with a view to bringing it within the cost limit. This may include suggesting that the subject or timespan of the request is narrowed. Any refined request should be treated as a new request for the purposes of the Act.

6.10 The cost limit should be applied before any exemption in Part II of the Act. This is because it will generally be necessary to establish whether information is held and to collate it before applying an exemption.

22 Page 237

7. Vexatious requests

7.1 Under section 14(1) of the Act a public authority is not obliged to provide a substantive response to a request if the request is vexatious. Like section 12, section 14 should be considered before consideration of any exemption in Part II of the Act.

7.2 The Act does not define what makes a vexatious request, though there are a number of Tribunal cases which have offered clarity and guidance on this issue. The Information Commissioner’s Office’s guidance for dealing with vexatious requests gives details of these. Public authorities should consider each case on its own facts, taking into consideration the best practice factors below. Section 14(1) may be used in a number of circumstances where a request, or the impact of a request, is not justifiable or reasonable.

7.3 Public authorities should always think carefully about applying section 14. However, Section 14(1) should not be considered as something to be applied as a last resort or in exceptional circumstances.

7.4 There will be times when a request is so unreasonable or objectionable that it is clear it is a vexatious request. For example, an abusive or offensive request that causes an unjustifiable level of distress or where threats are, or have been, made against staff.

7.5 In other circumstances it may be less immediately obvious that a request should be considered as vexatious. A public authority should consider a request vexatious where the request is likely to cause a disproportionate or unjustified level of disruption, irritation or distress. Factors public authorities might therefore want to consider include:

• the burden it places on a public authority and its staff; • the likely motives for the request; • the potential value or purpose of the request; • any harassment or distress to staff.

7.6 It may be helpful for a public authority to ask itself the following questions when considering whether a request is vexatious:

• What is the burden imposed on the public authority by the request? • Is there a personal grudge behind the request? • Is the requester unreasonably persisting in seeking information in relation to issues already addressed by the public authority? • Does the request have any serious purpose or value?

7.7 Public authorities can also take into account the wider context of a request to help them identify whether a request should be considered vexatious. For example:

23 Page 238

• what other requests have been made by the same requester to the public authority; • the number and subject matter of the requests if there are multiple requests; and • previous dealings with the requester.

Having looked at the wider context, it is then important to assess whether the evidence supports or weakens the vexatious argument.

7.8 There may also be times when a public authority considers that responding to a new request following a series of previous requests would engage section 14(1) because doing so would be disruptive or burdensome to the public authority given the volume of previous correspondence.

7.9 The following are examples public authorities may want to use when considering whether a request is vexatious:

• When an applicant has engaged in a large volume of sustained correspondence over a number of years in abusive or confrontational language. • Contact with a public authority that can be classified as long, detailed and overlapping. For example, a scenario when a requester has written to a series of officers on the same matters, repeating requests before a public authority has had the opportunity to answer an initial request and where responding to this correspondence would be a significant distraction from the public authority’s main functions. • Where a public authority considers that there is a deliberate ‘campaign’ by a number of requesters to purposefully disrupt the public authority’s activities and functions via a high volume of requests on the same or similar topics.

These examples should not limit public authorities from using section 14 in other circumstances, as the reasons why a request might be considered vexatious will depend on the specific factors in each case. The website of the Information Commissioner’s Office publishes examples of case law on this issue which may also be helpful to public authorities when considering whether a request is vexatious.

7.10 Public authorities should also keep in mind the requirements of section 8, in particular, the requirement for applicants to provide their real name and not use a pseudonym. As set out in paragraphs 1.14 and 1.15 pseudonymous requests are not valid requests under the Act. However, the use of pseudonyms may also form part of broader considerations when considering whether or not a request, or a series of requests, should be considered vexatious.

7.11 Finally, public authorities should note that the public interest in obtaining the material does not act as a ‘trump card’, overriding the vexatious elements of the request and requiring the public authority to respond to the request.

24 Page 239

Interaction between section 12 (cost limit) and 14(1) (vexatious requests)

7.12 In some cases, responding to the request is so burdensome for the public authority in terms of resources and time that the request can be refused under section 14(1). This is likely to apply in cases where it would create a very significant burden for the public authority to:

• prepare the information for publication; • redact the information for disclosure; • consult third parties; • apply exemptions.

7.13 It is not possible to use section 12 (cost limit) to refuse a request based on the above factors. In these cases, public authorities may want to instead consider using section 14 to refuse to respond to the request based on the burden that responding to the request would create.

7.14 Public authorities should avoid using section 14 for burdensome requests unnecessarily. On this basis they should always consider whether section 12 applies in the first instance. For example, if a public authority considers that locating and extracting the information in scope would exceed the cost limit, section 12 is likely to be most appropriate. However, if, for the reasons set out in paragraphs 7.12 to 7.13 above, section 12 cannot apply they should consider refusing the request using section 14(1).

7.15 An example of when this may happen may include the burden of redacting multiple entries on a large database as, although it may be possible to locate the database easily, redacting relevant entries (if there are thousands of entries) may create an unsustainable burden for the authority.

Repeated requests

7.16 Under section 14(2) of the Act, if a public authority has previously complied with a request for information (i.e. provided the information sought), it does not need to comply with a further request for the same information made by the same person, unless a reasonable interval has elapsed between compliance with the first request and receipt of the second. A repeated request should be interpreted as an identical or substantially similar request. This will depend on the circumstances and each case should be considered on its own merits.

Section 14 responses

7.17 If a public authority considers section 14 applies in any circumstances other than that referred in paragraph 7.14 they should provide a refusal notice to the applicant. This should

25 Page 240

be issued within 20 working days and explain that the public authority considers section 14 to be engaged. Public authorities should also include details of their internal review procedures and the right to appeal to the Information Commissioner. There is no obligation to explain why the request is vexatious, though public authorities may wish to do so as part of their section 16 duty to provide advice and assistance.

7.18 There will be some circumstances when a public authority does not need to provide a refusal notice. Section 17(6) sets out that a public authority is not obliged to issue a refusal notice where it considers that it is unreasonable in all the circumstances to do so. For example, if a refusal notice has previously been issued for an earlier vexatious or repeated request, and the public authority does not consider it reasonable to issue a further notice. It is worth noting that although section 17(6) excludes a public authority from the duty to provide a refusal notice, the public authority is still required to establish that each request is vexatious.

7.19 Public authorities should consider keeping an ongoing evidence log to record relevant correspondence or behaviour that has been taken into account when using section 14. This will be helpful in the event the applicant complains about the handling of the request.

26 Page 241

8. Publication Schemes

8.1 Section 19 of the FOI Act requires all public authorities to adopt and maintain a publication scheme. This element of the Act is designed to increase transparency and allow members of the public to routinely access information relating to the functions of a public authority.

8.2 The Information Commissioner’s Office has approved a model publication scheme which public authorities should use in the first instance.

Public authorities should also produce a guide to the scheme setting out:

• what information is published and by what means; • a schedule of fees, which should set out clearly any charges for obtaining any of the information.

8.3 Publication schemes must be updated and maintained, so public authorities must have a process for reviewing published information in order to ensure it is updated at appropriate intervals. Public authorities should also follow the timescales for publication of particular types of information as set out in the Information Commissioner’s Office guidance.3

8.4 This Code of Practice provides more specific guidance on two areas to supplement the existing guidance by the Information Commissioner’s Office.

Compliance Statistics

8.5 Public authorities with over 100 Full Time Equivalent (FTE) employees should, as a matter of best practice, publish details of their performance on handling requests for information under the Act. The information should include:

• The number of requests received during the period; • The number of the received requests that have not yet been processed (you may also wish to show how many of these outstanding requests have extended deadlines or a stopped clock, e.g. because a fee notice has been issued); • The number of the received requests that were processed in full (including numbers for those that were met within the statutory deadline, those where the deadline was extended and those where the processing took longer than the statutory deadline); • The number of requests where the information was granted in full; • The number of requests where the information was refused in full (you may wish to separately identify those where this was because the information was not held);

3 This guidance is available on the Information Commissioner’s website: https://ico.org.uk 27 Page 242

• The number of requests where the information was granted in part and refused in part; • The number of requests received that have been referred for internal review (this needs only reporting annually).

8.6 It is for individual public authorities to decide whether they wish to publish more detailed information than that set out above (they may, for example, wish to show a breakdown of the exemptions they have used for refusing requests or to show a breakdown of the outcomes for their internal reviews). When public authorities publish their statistics, they should do so on a quarterly basis, in line with central government. Publication schemes are likely to form the best vehicle for publishing this information. A guide on producing a suitable publication scheme can be found on the Information Commissioner’s website.

Senior Executive Pay & Benefits

8.7 Public authorities should also ensure publication schemes contain data to deliver sufficient transparency regarding the pay and benefits of senior executives and their equivalents.

8.8 In recent years, central government departments have increased the range of data published in respect of senior officials and primarily those at Director level (SCS2) and above. There will not always be a direct read-across for other public authorities but when considering what type of information should be published, authorities should consider those at management board level as a minimum equivalent.

8.9 Public authorities should publish information that covers the following four areas: • Pay. Senior staff who form a public authority’s senior management team; for central government departments this would be staff at Director level and above. Many other public sectors have published guidance, which set out sector-relevant salary levels suitable for publication (for example, the Local Government Association’s “Local Transparency Guidance - Publishing Organisation Information”). The Information Commissioner’s Office also publishes sector-relevant advice on this issue. Names and/or job titles should also be included (see 8.10 below). • Expenses. As above, staff on the senior management team, including elected officials and appointed representatives, if these are not already covered elsewhere. This should cover details of international and domestic travel and business expenses. • Benefits in kind. As above. Benefits in kind refer to benefits employees receive from their employment but which are not included in their salary. Examples include, company cars, private medical insurance paid for by an employer or cheap loans. Data should be published to the nearest £100. • Hospitality. As above. This should include any gifts, hospitality and benefits that are received from third parties (though this does not need to include small and insignificant items of hospitality, such as refreshments). This should include the name of the person or organisation that offered the gift or hospitality and the type of gift or hospitality received. This may also include additional information, such as whether the staff member was accompanied by a spouse, family member or friend. 28 Page 243

8.10 When publishing the names and other details of individual staff, public authorities need to bear in mind the general principle that it is acceptable to name senior managers who expect to be held publicly accountable, but that this does not extend to junior staff who do not have that same expectation. The Information Commissioner’s Office generally upholds this distinction.

8.11 Public authorities should publish this type of information at regular intervals. It is recommended that information about pay should be published annually, expenses quarterly and benefits in kind annually. Public authorities can refer to the Information Commissioner’s Office guidance as direction to the expected minimum level of detail. Local authorities should follow the publication requirements in the statutory Local Government Transparency Code on senior salary.

29 Page 244

9. Transparency and confidentiality obligations in contracts and outsourced services

Transparency

9.1 As more public services are contracted out to the private sector it is important that they are delivered in a transparent way, to ensure accountability to the user and taxpayer. There will be some circumstances when contractors hold information about contractual arrangements on behalf of a public authority which will then be subject to the Act.

9.2 It is important that contractors and public authorities are clear what this information is, and that it is made readily available to the contracting public authority when it receives requests under the Act.

Information held on behalf of a contracting public authority

9.3 When entering into a contract with a third party it is likely that both the public authority and the contractor will hold information about these contractual arrangements. If a contractor holds information relating to the contract “on behalf” of a public authority, this information should be considered in the same way as information held by a public authority and so will be subject to the Act (as explained in Chapter 1). Such information would, for example, include that which a public authority has placed in the custody of a contractor (e.g. record storage) or where a contract stipulates that certain information about service delivery is held on behalf of an authority for FOI purposes.

9.4 When entering into a contract the public authority and the contractor should agree what types of information they consider will be held by the contractor on behalf of the public authority and indicate this in the contract or in an annex or schedule. They should also think about putting in place appropriate arrangements for the public authority to gain access to the information if a request is made under the Act.

9.5 These appropriate arrangements may include:

• how and when the contractor should be approached for information, and who the contact points in each organisation are; • how quickly the information should be provided to the public authority bearing in mind the statutory deadline for responding to the request; • how any disagreement about disclosure between the public authority and contractor will be addressed; 30 Page 245

• how any request for internal review or subsequent appeal to the Information Commissioner will be handled; • the contractor’s responsibility for maintaining adequate systems for record keeping in relation to information held on behalf of the public authority; and • where the public authority itself holds the requested information, the circumstances under which the public authority must consult the contractor about disclosure and the process to be adopted in such cases.

9.6 These arrangements should, as good practice, be set out in the contract or in a related Memorandum of Understanding.

9.7 Given the statutory obligations of public authorities to respond to requests under the Act, and the fact that information held on their behalf by contractors is information subject to the Act, contractors must comply with requests by a public authority for access to such information, and must do so in a timely manner.

9.8 Requests for information held by contractors on behalf of a public authority should be answered by the public authority. Contractors receiving requests should pass them to the public authority for consideration or respond to the applicant to let them know they should direct their request to the relevant public authority.

Contract clauses

9.9 Where contractors deliver services on behalf of a public authority the contract with the public authority will need to make clear that contractors will need to fully assist the public authority with their obligations under the Act in line with the guidance set out in this chapter. The contract should include details of how non-compliance with these obligations will be dealt with. This should apply to both new and amended contracts.

9.10 If existing contracts do not set out these provisions, public authorities and contractors should consider alternatives to ensuring that the contractor provides the public authority access to information held on the public authority’s behalf. Options to consider include a supplementary Memorandum of Understanding.

9.11 Public authorities may be asked to accept confidentiality clauses when entering into a contract with a third party. Public authorities should carefully consider whether these agreements are compatible with their obligations under the Act and the public interest in accountability. It is important that both the public authority and the contractor are aware of the legal limits placed on the enforceability of such confidentiality clauses4 and the importance of making sure that the public can gain access to a wide range of information about contracts and their delivery. Public authorities should be mindful of any broader transparency obligations to publish regular details of spending, tenders and contracts on external suppliers; contracts should not hinder such transparency reporting.

4 Under common law a breach of a duty of confidentiality is not enforceable in the courts where an overriding public interest justifies the breach. 31 Page 246

9.12 Where there is good reason to include non-disclosure provisions in a contract, however, it may be helpful for public authorities and contractors to agree the types of information which should not be disclosed within a contract and the reasons for this confidentiality.

9.13 There may also be circumstances when public authorities offer or accept confidentiality arrangements that are not set out within a contract. Public authorities should also follow the guidance set out in this chapter in these circumstances. There will be circumstances when these agreements will be appropriate in order for the public authority to receive information from a third party; hence, this information may be protected by the exemptions in the Act. It will be important that both the public authority and the third party are aware of the legal limits placed on the enforceability of expectations of confidentiality and the public interest in transparency, as well as for authorities to ensure that such expectations are created only where it is appropriate to do so.

32 Page 247

10. Communicating with a requester

10.1 Public authorities may find the following guidance helpful for ensuring responses to requests for information and internal reviews meet the requirements set out in the Act.

10.2 Any initial response to a request for information under the Act should contain:

• A statement that the request has been dealt with under the Act; • Confirmation that the requested information is held or not held by the public authority or a statement neither confirming or denying whether the information is held; • The process, contact details and timescales for the public authority’s internal review appeals process; • Information about the applicant’s further right of appeal to the Information Commissioner and contact details for the Information Commissioner’s Office. • If some or all of the information cannot be disclosed, details setting out why this is the case, including the sections (with subsections) the public authority is relying on if relevant. When explaining the application of named exemptions, however, public authorities are not expected to provide any information which is itself exempt.

10.3 The response to a request for an Internal Review should contain:

• Whether the Internal Reviewer agrees with the original response or not; • Whether the reviewer considers that new exemptions are applicable and, if so, details of these exemptions and why they are engaged (to the extent they can without providing exempt information); • Information about the applicant’s further right of appeal to the Information Commissioner and contact details for the Information Commissioner’s Office.

33 Page 248

11. Datasets

11.1 Sections 11,11A, 11B and 19 of Part I of the Act provide additional rights in relation to the disclosure and, in some cases, re-use of datasets.

11.2 The provisions governing the release of a dataset apply to all datasets held by any public authority subject to the Act.

11.3 Provisions relating to re-use only apply to the relatively small proportion of datasets not subject to the Re-use of Public Sector Information (PSI) Regulations 20155. Guidance about the re-use of datasets under the FOI Act is provided in Annex B to this Code of Practice.

11.4 The Act does not require the creation of datasets for publication, nor does it require datasets to be updated if they would not otherwise have been updated as part of the public authority’s function. In deciding whether to release a dataset, a public authority should consider any exemptions which may apply and in particular, the exemption in section 40 of the Act relating to personal data and the Information Commissioner’s Code of Practice on Anonymisation.

11.5 These considerations should also be taken into account when considering the release of an incomplete or draft dataset. When releasing an incomplete dataset it is good practice to explain the dataset is not complete and the likely implications of this. i. Scope

11.6 The definition of dataset is limited to the criteria specified at section 11(5) of the Act.

11.7 The first part of the definition (subsection (5)(a)) means that the datasets caught by the Act are those datasets which a public authority has originally obtained or recorded for the purposes of providing services or carrying out its functions, including decision-making.

11.8 The second part of the definition limits datasets to factual information subject to the two criteria in subsection (5)(b). The intention behind the first criterion is to catch ‘raw’ or ‘source’ data. Calculation of information within the dataset does not count as ‘analysis’ or ‘interpretation’. Therefore aggregated data forming a high-level dataset (such as the creation of annual figures from data that were collected weekly), form a dataset within the definition of the Act.

11.9 The second criterion excludes official statistics which are subject to their own regime of disclosure and publication, including under the Statistics and Registration Service Act 2007.

5 http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/information-management/re-using-public-sector-information/ 34 Page 249

11.10 Subsection 5(c) is also intended to ensure only ‘raw’ or ‘source’ data is captured within the meaning of a dataset. The key consideration here is whether the reorganisation or adaptation represents a ‘material alteration’ to the original presentation of the dataset. Minor or insignificant changes to a dataset will not take it outside the definition.

11.11 The other key consideration in the definition is how much, if any, of the data in the dataset has been changed or altered. If ‘all or most’ of the data in the dataset meet the criteria set out in subsection 5, then the dataset will fall within the definition. Examples of where datasets will continue to fall under the definition within the Act include: • The original dataset used to form a new dataset; • Amended datasets where work has been undertaken to improve the quality of a dataset; • Datasets that have been anonymised, or otherwise had exempt information removed.

11.12 Where information requested meets the definition of a dataset, the authority will be under a duty to provide the dataset in a re-usable format where reasonably practicable. ii. Disclosing datasets in an electronic form which is capable of re-use

11.13 When releasing any dataset under the Act public authorities must, as far as reasonably practicable, provide it in a re-usable format. A re-usable format is one that is machine readable, such as Comma-separated Value (CSV) format.

11.14 Where datasets are only held in non-re-usable formats, the public authority is not obliged to convert the dataset before releasing it where it is not reasonably practicable to do so.

11.15 In deciding whether it would be practicable to provide the dataset in a re-usable format, the public authority can take account of all the relevant circumstances. These circumstances may include the time and the cost involved in converting the dataset from a proprietary to a re-usable format, and the resources available to the public authority.

11.16 If the public authority concludes that it would not be reasonably practicable to provide the dataset in a re-usable format, then the public authority must still provide the dataset in another format. iii. Standards applicable to public authorities in connection with the disclosure of a dataset

11.17 When releasing datasets public authorities should adhere to the Public Data Principles where possible. These principles are expected good practice for central government departments and recommended for the wider public sector.

35 Page 250

11.18 It is recommended good practice that datasets will be accompanied by sufficient metadata and contextual information about how and why the dataset was compiled or created.

11.19 When procuring new data processing systems, public authorities should reference the Government Principles for Open Standards in new government information technology specifications for software interoperability, data and document formats. The Principles are compulsory for central government departments, their agencies, non-departmental public bodies and any other bodies for which they are responsible. iv. Cost of providing the dataset in a reusable format

11.20 If the cost of complying with the request would not exceed the appropriate limit and the information is not otherwise exempt, the public authority must provide the dataset (subject to any right to charge a fee). If the requester expresses a preference for the dataset in electronic form, the public authority must provide it in a reusable format, so far as reasonably practicable. A public authority may not charge for the cost of providing the dataset in a reusable format, but, in deciding whether it would be reasonably practicable to provide it in that format, it can take account of the cost, time and resources that would be involved. v. Publication of datasets as part of a publication scheme

11.21 Public authorities should consider publishing existing and newly created datasets as part of their publication scheme. If the dataset would be released on request, the public authority should consider publishing it through the public authority’s publication scheme.

11.22 Public authorities should consider their long term plans and processes for the collection and storage of datasets, keeping in mind that they should be made easily accessible and in a re-usable format for requests or publication as part of their publication scheme as well as for normal business purposes.

11.23 When publishing a dataset on their website, public authorities, should, where possible, publish it in a machine readable format, so that the data can be directly downloaded from a given URL.

11.24 If a dataset has been requested from a public authority under the Act, then the authority must publish that dataset in accordance with its publication scheme unless the public authority is satisfied that it would not be appropriate to publish it. If the public authority holds an updated version of the dataset it must also publish the updated version, unless it is satisfied that it is not appropriate to do so.

11.25 When the public authority publishes the dataset under its publication scheme, it must (as for responding to a request) provide it in an electronic form that is capable of re-use, where it is reasonably practicable to do so. 36 Page 251

Annex A – Table of FOI Act

Exemption Clauses

The table below sets out a straightforward reference guide to the exemption clauses that are set out under Part II of the FOI Act. Detailed guidance on the application of these exemptions is set out on the website of the Information Commissioner’s Office.

* starred exemptions are absolute; all other exemptions require a public interest test.

Section No. Description

21 * Information accessible to the applicant by other means.

22 Information intended for future publication, including that obtained in the course of a programme of research.

23 * Information supplied by, or relating to, bodies dealing with security matters.

24 Information for the purpose of safeguarding national security.

26 Information that may prejudice defence of the realm.

27 Information that may prejudice international relations.

28 Information that may prejudice relations between administrations within the United Kingdom.

29 Information that may prejudice the economic or financial interests of the United Kingdom.

30 Information held for the purposes of investigations and proceedings conducted by public authorities.

31 Information that may prejudice law enforcement.

32 * Information contained in court documents and records.

33 Information that may prejudice the exercise of audit functions.

34 * Information that may infringe the privileges of either House of Parliament. 37 Page 252

35 Information that relates to the formulation or development of Government policy.

36 Information that may prejudice the collective responsibility of Ministers, inhibit the free and frank provision of advice or prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs.

37* Information relating to communications with Her Majesty and other members of the Royal Household or the conferring of honours (absolute exemption in relation only to communications with the Sovereign, the heir to the Throne and second in line to the Throne).

38 Information that may be likely to endanger the safety or the physical or mental health of an individual.

39 Information relating to environmental information.

40 * Personal data (absolute exemption in relation only to information that is the personal data of the applicant).

41 * Information that is obtained from another person or public authority and would constitute a breach of confidence.

42 Information that is covered by legal professional privilege.

43 Information that constitutes a trade secret or may prejudice commercial interests.

44 * Information that is prohibited from disclosure by any enactment, EU obligation or would constitute contempt of court.

38 Page 253

Annex B – Re-use of datasets

As well as providing additional rights in relation to the disclosure of datasets, the Act also provides for the re-use of datasets not subject to the Re-use of Public Sector Information (PSI) Regulations 2015. The National Archives has provided separate guidance about the re- use of information6 in accordance with those Regulations.

Only where the PSI Regulations do not apply, should re-use be considered under the Act. They do not apply to datasets held by educational and research establishments, public service broadcasters, cultural or performing arts bodies (other than public sector museums, libraries and archives), or when held by other public authorities for purposes unrelated to their public task. 7 The easiest way for a public authority to comply with the licensing requirements of both FOI and PSI is to make datasets available for re-use under the Open Government Licence, where appropriate.

Giving permission for datasets to be re-used

Public authorities should release datasets with accompanying details of licence conditions that apply to the re-use of the dataset or any limitation on re-use by virtue of third party intellectual property rights.

Consideration should also be given to the extent to which such information is exempt from disclosure under sections 41 and 43(2) of the Act.

The public authority should ascertain whether copyright and/or database rights (‘intellectual property’) in the dataset are owned solely by the authority or whether there is a third party interest. Nothing in the Act’s re-use provisions overrides the rights of any third parties who may own intellectual property contained in the datasets. If a public authority grants a licence to re-use a dataset or part of a dataset containing third party intellectual property without the owner’s permission it may constitute an infringement of the third party’s rights.

Where there is a third party interest any re-use licence must permit re-use only of those parts of the dataset that the public authority owns. If possible, and subject to any confidentiality requirements, the public authority should identify the requester who owns the remainder of the rights.

In some cases the public authority may be able to obtain the third party’s permission to grant the re-use of the third party intellectual property outside the Act.

6 http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/information-management/re-using-public-sector-information/ 7 http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/information-management/guidance-on-public-task- statements.pdf 39 Page 254

UK government policy is that, wherever possible, Crown Copyright material should be made available for re-use. If in doubt it is advisable to seek legal advice.

Licensing

If the dataset that is being provided, or any part of it, is a relevant copyright work owned solely by the public authority, the public authority must make that work available for re-use in accordance with the terms of one of the licences specified in the following paragraphs. The UK Government Licensing Framework8 (UKGLF) provides an overview of the arrangements for licensing the use and re-use of public sector information. The starting point is that public authorities are encouraged to use the Open Government Licence for datasets which can be re-used without charge.

The Open Government Licence is the default licensing model for most Crown copyright information produced by the UK Government and supplied without charge. It is a non- transactional open licence which enables use and re-use with virtually no restrictions. It is applicable when use and re-use, including for commercial purposes, is at no cost to the user/re-user. Established as part of a wider UK Government Licensing Framework, it is hosted on The National Archives website9.

It is recognised that the Open Government Licence will not be appropriate in all cases, for example, in circumstances where information may only be used for non-commercial purposes. The Non-Commercial Government Licence was developed to incorporate that situation. As with the Open Government Licence, public authorities can link to the Non- Commercial Government Licence on The National Archives website.

Where a public authority charges a fee for the re-use of a dataset, it must do so in accordance with the Charged Licence. The licence consists of standard licensing terms and, like the above licences, forms part of the UK Government Licensing Framework. It can also be accessed on The National Archives website10.

Costs and fees

It is important to distinguish between the cost to the public authority of disclosing a dataset (including in a re-usable format), and the fees that can be charged to the applicant for making a dataset available for re-use under section 11A (or, where relevant, the equivalent charging provisions in the PSI).

8 http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/information-management/re-using-public-sector- information/licensing-for-re-use/ukglf/ 9 http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/information-management/re-using-public-sector- information/uk-government-licensing-framework/open-government-licence/ 10 http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/information-management/re-using-public-sector- information/uk-government-licensing-framework/open-government-licence/other-licences/

40 Page 255

The Freedom of Information (Fees for Re-use of Datasets) Regulations 2013 provide that public authorities may charge a fee for making relevant copyright works available for re-use, unless it already has another applicable statutory power to charge. If a public authority wishes to charge a fee, and is already entitled to do so under any other applicable legislation for the re-use of the relevant copyright work, then it must do so on that other statutory basis instead of these regulations.

41 Page 256

[inside of the back cover – for printed publications, leave this page blank]

42 Page 257

[back cover – for printed publications, you can add a summary of the report here]

43 Page 258 Agenda Item 8

Agenda Item No. 8

REPORT TO: Management Board/ Cabinet

DATE: 18 March 2019/ 27 March 2019

SERVICE AREA: Finance

REPORTING OFFICER: Revenues, Welfare and Customer Services Manager (Alison Wilson)

SUBJECT: Non-domestic discretionary rates relief policy 2019

WARD/S AFFECTED: ALL DISTRICT

FORWARD PLAN REF: N/A

1.0 PURPOSE OF REPORT

To seek approval for changes to the discretionary rates relief policy from April 2019 following changes to national legislation and requested support for local infrastructure.

2.0 RECOMMENDATION/S

2.1 The outcomes from the consultation process are noted

2.2 The Non-domestic discretionary rates relief policy (Appendix A) is implemented from 1 April 2019.

3.0 RECOMMENDED REASON/S FOR DECISION/S

3.1 The policy provides local support for businesses over and above what is available nationally to enhance the local economy.

3.2 A majority of the consultation responses show support for the proposals.

4.0 ALTERNATIVE OPTION/S CONSIDERED AND RECOMMENDED FOR REJECTION (Must be used for reports to Cabinet & Cabinet Members)

To continue with the current Non-domestic discretionary rate relief policy which would not allow for the proposed additional areas of relief to be rolled out within the district.

Page 259 1

5.0 THE REPORT

5.1 Discretionary rates relief allows Local Authorities to have some flexibility in areas of relief awarded to businesses to support the local economy and/or focus on specific areas for development.

5.2 The policy was reviewed in 2018 and additional areas introduced for Town Centre Improvement and Childcare Relief. The different categories of relief available are listed below:  Business Investment in targeted growth areas  Childcare support relief  Discretionary business rates relief  Hardship Relief  Increasing the supply of high quality office space  Partly occupied (Section 44a) relief  Re-occupation of empty listed buildings  Rural rate relief  Town centre improvement relief  Discretionary relief for non-profit organisations

A total of £200,568 has been awarded in discretionary relief this year across these categories. £63,000 of this has gone to support thirteen childcare providers in the district, and a further £1,000 to support town centre improvement.

5.3 Requests for further changes and the proposal nationally to introduce Retail Rate Relief from April 2019 has resulted in a further review and a new policy developed which can be found at Appendix A. No areas of relief have been removed, however sections 2.2.6 (Mobile Infrastructure business rate relief) and 2.2.9 (Retail rate relief) are new.

5.4 Section 2.2.3 has been updated as a result of the proposed Retail Rate Relief introduction. Discretionary Business Rate Relief was introduced following the 2017 re-valuation as a discretionary fund to support local businesses adversely effected by the re-valuation. The proposed amendments to the scheme allow us to maximise support to businesses in the district within the funding available.

5.5 Changes to the policy require a period of consultation, and as such the policy was open to public consultation for an eight week period, resulting in the responses in Appendix B.

5.6 Of the six responses to the consultation, five were supportive of the proposals.

Of the comments received, in terms of childcare provision, this is a feature of the current policy and continues to feature in the proposed 2019 policy. Harrogate Borough Council was the first local authority in England to provide this relief as a way of supporting parents back to work. Scotland introduced childcare relief in 2018 and a national relief is being introduced in Wales from April 2019. A number of other local authorities in England are also now looking at discretionary schemes.

Page 260 2

All other comments were received from the single respondent who did not agree with the policy, and did not read the policy as part of their consultation response.

6.0 REQUIRED ASSESSMENTS AND IMPLICATIONS

6.1 The following were considered: Financial Implications; Human Resources Implications; Legal Implications; ICT Implications; Strategic Property/Asset Management Considerations; Risk Assessment; Equality and Diversity (the Public Sector Equality Duty and impact upon people with protected characteristics). If applicable, the outcomes of any consultations, assessments, considerations and implications considered necessary during preparation of this report are detailed below.

6.2 Financial Implications:

In the budget for 2019/20, as set in the NNDR1 form that was submitted to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government in January 2019, and reflected in the Council’s budget, a total of £291k has been included to provide for discretionary reliefs.

If the amount of discretionary relief granted in 2019/20 is greater than this, this would, all other things being equal, result in a deficit on the Collection Fund, which would need to be recouped in future years. The cost of this would be divided as follows:

Harrogate Borough Council 52.5% North Yorkshire County Council 21.5% Central Government 25% North Yorkshire Fire and Rescue 1%

Conversely, any underspend against the £291k would result in a surplus on the Collection Fund, which would be redistributed in future years to authorities in the proportions set out above.

7.0 CONCLUSIONS

The performance of the policy over the previous twelve months demonstrates the effectiveness of the current categories and areas of relief on offer. The proposed additions and amendments enhance the current offering to support businesses and the development of infrastructure in the district which in turn support the development of the local economy.

Background Papers –

OFFICER CONTACT: Please contact Alison Wilson (Revenues, Welfare and Customer Services Manager), if you require any further information on the contents of this report. The officer can be contacted by e-mail – [email protected]

Page 261 3

Page 262 4

Non-domestic Discretionary Rate Relief Policy April 2019

Produced by - Revenues, Welfare and Customer Services

Author – Alison Wilson

Page 263 Contents 1 Overview ...... 3 1.1 Background and legislation ...... 3 1.2 Purpose of the policy ...... 3 1.3 General principles ...... 3 1.4 Application requirements ...... 4 1.5 Processing applications...... 4 1.6 Appealing a decision ...... 4 1.7 Payment of non-domestic rates ...... 5 1.8 State aid ...... 5 2 Rates relief for businesses ...... 6 2.1 Mandatory relief for businesses ...... 6 2.2 Discretionary relief for businesses in the Harrogate District ...... 6 2.2.1 Business investment in targeted growth sectors ...... 6 2.2.2 Childcare support relief ...... 7 2.2.3 Discretionary business rate relief ...... 7 2.2.4 Hardship relief...... 8 2.2.5 Increasing the supply of high quality office space ...... 9 2.2.6 Mobile infrastructure business rate relief ...... 10 2.2.7 Partly occupied property relief (Section 44a) ...... 10 2.2.8 Re-occupation of empty listed building ...... 12 2.2.9 Retail relief ...... 13 2.2.10 Rural rate relief ...... 13 2.2.11 Town centre improvement relief ...... 14 3 Rate relief for non- profit making organisations...... 15 3.1 Mandatory reliefs for organisations ...... 15 3.2 Discretionary relief for organisations ...... 15 3.2.1 General evaluation criteria ...... 16 3.2.2 Charities and CASCs ...... 18

Page 264

Non-domestic Discretionary Rates Relief Policy April 2019

1 Overview

1.1 Background and legislation Harrogate Borough Council (HBC) has four clear priorities for the district;

1. A strong local economy

2. A sustainable environment

3. Supporting our communities

4. Excellent public services

The council understands the importance support to local businesses and organisations plays in achieving against the above priorities, ensuring our communities and businesses are able to develop and thrive within the district.

Section 47 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 gives powers to local councils to grant discretionary business rate relief. Subsequent legislation in the Localism Act 2011 has extended these powers to allow wider granting of local discretionary relief.

Although some reliefs are awarded through central government initiatives and can be reclaimed under a section 31 government grant, the remaining support is met by the local authority. Therefore there must be clear and transparent guidance in place to ensure relief is awarded fairly and consistently across the district to support our priorities.

1.2 Purpose of the policy The policy outlines how the council will operate within the above legislation, and refers to discretionary rates relief scenarios applicable within the district. The policy also references European Union legislation and restrictions for State Aid, plus the application process to be followed when applying for rates relief.

Finally, the policy document identifies the responsibilities for decision making when awarding discretionary rate relief and the process for appealing any decision should the applicant not agree with the outcome.

1.3 General principles Applications for discretionary rate relief must be considered in accordance with statutory requirements and give consideration to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State. Decisions will be taken in accordance with the council’s constitution and with consideration to the interests of HBC council tax payers. The criteria for discretionary relief awards have been allocated in such a way as to ensure the benefit to HBC tax payers, the local economy and community exceed any detrimental effects to these caused by the financial impact of the award. Locally managed reliefs will be applied once any mandatory, or government led discretionary reliefs have been applied.

Page 265

Non-domestic Discretionary Rates Relief Policy April 2019 1.4 Application requirements Applications for mandatory and discretionary relief must be made online via www.harrogate.gov.uk. All application forms and supporting information requirements can be found under the Business and investment area of the website.

Other than for applications on the grounds of hardship, rate relief will be awarded from the date of application. If the applicant can demonstrate good cause for not making the application sooner, then discretion may be applied in exceptional circumstances and rate relief awarded retrospectively.

1.5 Processing applications Once an application has been received by the council, it will be processed and evaluated against the criteria set. All required supporting evidence must be received prior to the evaluation taking place. The application will be passed to the Revenues, Welfare and Customer Services Manager for review and a decision made on the award.

We aim to process applications within four weeks of receipt of the complete application and supporting evidence. Once evaluated, applicants will be informed of the outcome. If an application is unsuccessful, the notification will tell the applicant the reasons why an award has not been granted.

Successful applications will have the award applied to their non-domestic rates account, and will receive a notification informing them of the decision, the percentage and timeframe the deduction has been awarded for and an amended non-domestic rate demand, or bill.

1.6 Appealing a decision Harrogate Borough Council are keen to ensure ratepayers feel they have been treated fairly and therefore applicants may write to the council to tell us why they consider a decision to be wrong. This should be received by the council no more than four weeks after notification of an unsuccessful application is received by the ratepayer. The submission will be reviewed by the council’s Section 151 officer in conjunction with the Portfolio Holder for Finance (Cabinet Member for Resources, Enterprise and Economic Development). This will be completed within six weeks of receipt of the applicant’s letter and the applicant will receive a written response.

If the applicant is still not satisfied with the response, a further appeal can be submitted to the Licensing Committee. The applicant will be notified of the appeal hearing and invited to attend, and subsequently notified in writing of the outcome of the appeal. The decision of the Licensing Committee is final.

Right of appeal for refusal to grant relief can be challenged by judicial review under section 138 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988. This is the means by which the decisions of billing authorities under discretionary rating powers may be questioned. Judicial review is a High Court remedy, which may be resorted to by any person or organisation under the Rules of the Supreme Court, and which is primarily concerned not with the facts of the case in question but with the way the facts have been considered. The High Court’s principal concern, here, is with the procedures leading up to the consideration of the case, with the conduct of the procedures leading up to the consideration of the case, with the conduct of the proceedings while the case is being considered, and with the extent to which relevant or irrelevant matters were or were not taken into account. Page 266

Non-domestic Discretionary Rates Relief Policy April 2019 1.7 Payment of non-domestic rates Ratepayers are required to continue making payments towards their business rates as they become due, during both the application and appeal stages of the process. If payments are not received, then the council will continue with its normal process for recovering arrears.

1.8 State aid Public authorities are responsible for ensuring their policies comply with the rules concerning state aid.

Rate relief will not be awarded in circumstances where it appears that an award will result in the ratepayer receiving state aid that is above the current de minimis level.

Each rate relief application received from a business must be accompanied by a signed statement from the appropriate person representing the business, setting out the amount of state aid received by the business over the last three years. Applications will not be considered until this information has been provided.

Page 267

Non-domestic Discretionary Rates Relief Policy April 2019

2 Rates relief for businesses There are a number of different areas of rate relief available for businesses. Some of these are set by central government to support development initiatives and the 2017 re-valuation process, whilst others are local discretionary reliefs supported by Harrogate Borough Council and therefore the local tax payer.

2.1 Mandatory relief for businesses Details of mandatory reliefs can be found at https://www.gov.uk/apply-for-business-rate-relief

HBC has no discretion in awarding mandatory relief, however must be satisfied that the statutory criteria are met. Any concerns over the status of a business will be reviewed against the available case law.

Appeals against refusal to grant relief must be made to the Magistrate’s Court at a liability order hearing.

2.2 Discretionary relief for businesses in the Harrogate District

2.2.1 Business investment in targeted growth sectors The Economic Growth Strategy for the Harrogate District (https://www.harrogate.gov.uk/economicgrowthstrategy) seeks to build on existing strengths, proactively address the challenges that the district’s economy faces and create effective partnerships, thereby securing a successful and sustainable economic future. This relief will support the following aims of the strategy:

 A good supply of quality employment space in the appropriate locations; encouraging business growth and inward investment;

 An increase in the district’s productivity and gross value added (GVA);

 More higher value jobs and higher average workplace wages, generating greater expenditure in the district;

 An image as a great place to invest and do business.

Our ambition is to provide relief for businesses who want to establish new operations within the district. The specific targeted growth sectors are:

 Financial & Professional Services

 Creative & Digital

 Logistics

 Scientific Research & Development

Applications from other sectors may still be considered on a case by case basis. Page 268

Non-domestic Discretionary Rates Relief Policy April 2019

Applications under this relief must demonstrate the following;

 Creation of new jobs within the Harrogate district

Micro Small Medium Large New jobs in District (FTE) 1 -9 10 -49 50 - 249 250 +

Relief per FTE 6% 4% 2% 1% Max relief 50% 50% 50% 50%

 Evidence of job creation and long term lease/freehold to show their commitment to continued business activity within the district.

Successful applicants can choose to either receive relief within the first year of occupation or spread this over the first three years of their investment. In the event the business re-locates outside of the Harrogate district within the five year time period following discretionary relief being awarded, then the organisation will be required to repay any relief granted.

The decision to make an award within this category of relief will be taken by the Revenues, Welfare and Customer Services Manager, in consultation with the Economic Development Team, and the relevant Cabinet portfolio holder.

2.2.2 Childcare support relief The council recognises the benefit to local communities of childcare providers to enable parents to work to support family life and the local economy.

Changes to the provision of government supported free childcare places introduce challenges to providers to continue delivering services whilst also offering the government funded initiative of 30 hrs free child care.

Childcare support relief invites applications from childcare providers for a 50% rates reduction on non-domestic premises who meet the following criteria;

 Facility provides childcare for ten or more children under the age of eight

 Service is available a minimum of 8am – 5pm Monday to Friday

 An Ofsted or other “approved childcare” provider

 Childcare vouchers are accepted as a form of payment

 Delivers on the government requirements to provide 30hrs of free childcare per child per week

2.2.3 Discretionary business rate relief At the Spring 2017 budget, the Government announced the establishment of a £300 million discretionary fund to local councils over four years from 2017/18 to support businesses in their areas. The £300 million will cover the four years from 2017/18 as follows:

Page 269

Non-domestic Discretionary Rates Relief Policy April 2019  £175m in 2017/18

 £85m in 2018/19

 £35m in 2019/20

 £5m in 2020/21

Harrogate Borough Council recognises the support the proportion of additional funding allocated to the district can bring to local businesses facing increases in their business rates liability following the 2017 re-evaluation. Authorities are required to design their own schemes to be applied within the district, and the council is keen to maximise the use of the available funding and ensure it is effectively distributed within the local area. The HBC scheme offers in year one a 60% reduction against the rate increase experienced by businesses who say their Rateable Value increase by over 10%. The level of reduction applicable will be recalculated annually based on the level of funding available. If the Retail Relief proposed by government is approved for implementation in 2019/20 (detailed in section 2.2.9), the Discretionary business rates relief will continue to be allocated in the same way, but focusing on local businesses not eligible for Retail Rate Relief.

The council are taking a proactive approach to allocation of this relief and having identified eligible parties, will updated their accounts appropriately, and will continue to do so over the period relief is available.

2.2.4 Hardship relief Section 49 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 allows the authority discretionary power to reduce up to 100% the payment of business rates for either occupied (section 43 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988) or unoccupied (section 45 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988) properties.

Each case will be considered individually based on the information provided in the application. If no evidence of hardship can be established, then there is no obligation for the authority to award hardship relief. The application should provide evidence against the following criteria;

 Prior two years trading accounts show a decrease in profitability

 The imposition of business rates is causing the hardship

 The loss of the business impacts on the local community through loss of employment, or services as the only supplier in the area;

 The business has proactively undertaken actions to manage the situation such as obtaining business advice, pricing review, employee remuneration review (reasonable remuneration classed as 150% of the national living wage);

 A business plan identifying how the current loss situation will be improved.

Applications for hardship relief against empty properties will only be considered in exceptional circumstances where there are clear benefits to the local taxpayers in making the award.

Applications will not be considered where the following factors are met;

 The latest availablePage annual 270 accounts show a profit, and/or;

Non-domestic Discretionary Rates Relief Policy April 2019  Assets or reserves amount to more than 300% of annual non-domestic rates liability, and/or;

 The proprietor has failed to exercise due diligence to anticipate circumstances that could result in hardship, and/or;

 A prior hardship relief award has been granted for 12 months in the last 24 month period, and/or;

 The business has been established for less than 12 months, unless there are clear unpredictable events that could not have been foreseen which threaten the viability of the business, and/or;

 There is no clear benefit to the council tax payer.

Relief will only be granted where the council feels there is clear evidence of hardship and is satisfied that failure to apply an award will impact on the longevity of the business and the community it serves.

Awards will be applied for a maximum of six months from the application date, or date evidenced hardship commenced. Applications can be made to extend the period of the award for a further six months, however previous business planning and performance will be considered before extending the duration of the award. Extension of hardship relief beyond the 12 month period will be under exceptional circumstances only and will be considered by the councils Section 151 officer in conjunction with the Portfolio Holder.

2.2.5 Increasing the supply of high quality office space The availability of high quality office space is a priority to stimulate the local economy and development of high value growth sectors.

Applications under this category of relief must demonstrate the following;

 Must include B1 (a and b) use class (offices, research & development)

 Must be over 2,000 square feet (from the valuation office review)

 Must be in an accessible, preferably town centre location with consideration to public transport routes.

The amount of any reduction awarded will be considered in line with other applications received previously, and the following factors;

 Existing levels of relief

 Level of private investment

 Rateable value

 Layout – with a preference for open plan

 Digital infrastructure Page 271

Non-domestic Discretionary Rates Relief Policy April 2019  Energy efficiency improvements

The decision to make an award under this provision will be by the Revenues, Welfare and Customer Services Manager, in consultation with council’s Estate Surveyors and the Cabinet portfolio holder.

2.2.6 Mobile infrastructure business rate relief Local Authorities want to encourage mobile phone service providers to provide services to the more rural areas of the district where there is currently very poor or non-existent mobile phone coverage.

The areas where Business Rate Relief will apply are: a) Not Spots – The mast is to serve an area where there is no mobile coverage from any operator.

b) Areas of Poor Mobile Coverage for all operators – The mast is to serve an area where the signal level is below the minimum level for all operators as stated by the industry regulator Ofcom.  The area may have some mobile coverage but it is not of a recognised level to sustain good communications. This will be measured by the NYCC Mobile Phone Coverage Programme Manager.

It should be noted that a mast will not be considered for business rate relief in areas where:  There is currently coverage by one of the operators;  There is a need to increase coverage due to capacity issues; or  Operators are looking for a new site due to cessation notice on an original site.

The business rate relief will be applied to any new mobile infrastructure meeting the agreed criteria up to a value of £6,000 per annum per mast initially for a period of three years. Two further extension periods of two years each may be awarded if after year three and year five a review of the site confirms the area of coverage is still low use and/or commercial changes such as building development have not impacted on the usage and therefore profitability of the mast. This gives a maximum possible relief of £42,000 over the seven year period.

Applications will be considered by the RWCS Manager in consultation with the NYCC Programme Manager – Mobile Phone Coverage, to confirm the location of the mast meets the criteria above.

2.2.7 Partly occupied property relief (Section 44a) The council has discretion under section 44a of the Local Government Finance Act to award rate relief where part of a property is un-occupied for a temporary period of time. The award is calculated by statute and is calculated as a proportion of the rateable value apportioned to the unoccupied area by the Valuation Office. Each application must be accompanied by a plan clearly showing the un-occupied area the application applies to.

The intention of this relief is to assist businesses who may be changing their business model or relocating and occupying spaces over a gradual period of time, however there must be clearly definable spaces for the purposes of apportionment. The reasons for partial occupation should be evidenced by the rate payer and each application will be considered on its own merits. No award will be made where it appears to the council that un-occupation of part of a property is wholly or partially for the purposes of applying for partly occupied property relief. Applications will always be considered in line with the section 44a ofPage the Local 272 Government Finance Act 1988 and any

Non-domestic Discretionary Rates Relief Policy April 2019 relevant case law.

Examples of circumstances where an application would be considered include (but are not limited to) the following scenarios;

 Partial occupation of a factory or commercial property to facilitate relocation of the business

 Part occupation of premises due to a downturn in trade

 Fire, flood or other natural disaster prevents full use of the building

If a request for an award is accepted, the council will request a certificate from the Valuation Office Agency indicating the relevant values of the occupied and unoccupied portions. This certificate is binding to the council and there is no right of appeal against the apportionment.

The ratepayer must allow access to the property by a council officer by appointment Monday to Friday between 9am and 5pm within two weeks of the application being received in order for the officer to verify the occupation of the property. If required, further access may be requested during the award period. Access to the un-occupied area may be requested immediately without advanced notice. Should access not be allowed promptly without good cause, the rate relief award may be withdrawn.

The effect of the apportionment applies for the period the relief is applied, defined as the period beginning with the day the partial un-occupancy commenced, and ending on the first day one of the following events occurs;

 Occupancy of the un-occupied part of the property

 The end of the financial year in which the apportionment was made

 The end of six months from when the apportionment was made

 Requirement of a change to the apportionment

 Change to the liable party

 Complete occupation of the property

 Complete vacation of the property

Retrospective applications will not be considered once re-occupation of the space has taken place, unless independent evidence can be supplied to support a backdated claim.

Page 273

Non-domestic Discretionary Rates Relief Policy April 2019 2.2.8 Re-occupation of empty listed building Empty listed buildings currently receive a mandatory rate relief of 100% with no time limit. This means there is little incentive for owners or investors to bring these properties back into use, reducing the risk of decay and safety issues, whilst helping to retain the rich heritage of the district which plays an important part in its economic development.

To incentivise investment in these properties, HBC will provide relief to the rate payer over a three year period, once commercial activities have resumed or started in the property. The following criteria must be met for relief to be granted;

 The building must be listed and have been vacant for a minimum of twelve consecutive months;

 Evidence must be submitted that some renovation is required to bring the building back into commercial use;

 The applicant must gain Listed Building consent for the proposed work, and any associated planning permission

Where the criteria are met, relief is as follows:

Year after property Maximum is brought back into % of relief use

Year 1 80%

Year 2 50%

Year 3 20%

The relief only applies to the owner/occupier making the improvements to the building. The relief will end if the ownership or responsibility for paying the rates changes to another person or organisation after the award has been made.

The decision to make an award under this provision will be by the Revenues, Welfare and Customer Services Manager, in consultation with officers from Planning and Development and the Cabinet portfolio holder.

Page 274

Non-domestic Discretionary Rates Relief Policy April 2019 2.2.9 Retail relief The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government is expecting to introduce retail relief for the financial years 2019/20 and 2020/21 to support occupied business premises with a rateable value of less than £51,000 that are wholly or mainly used as shops, restaurants, cafes and drinking establishments defined as a) hereditaments that are being used for the sale of goods to visiting members of the public. For example:  shops  charity shops  post offices  furniture shops  petrol stations  garden centres b) Hereditaments that are being used for the provision of the following services by members of the public. For example:  Hair and beauty services  Shoe/domestic appliance repairs  Travel agents  Launderettes  Funeral directors  Car/Tool hire c) Hereditaments that are being used for the sale of food and/or drink to visiting members of the public For example:  Restaurants  Take aways  Sandwich shops  Coffee Shops  Pubs/Bars

Qualifying businesses will be entitled to 1/3 relief against the chargeable amount following application of any other mandatory reliefs, or applicable discretionary reliefs.

Application of this relief will be processed automatically subject to state aids limits.

2.2.10 Rural rate relief Some rural businesses are eligible for mandatory Rural rate relief of 100% however applications for discretionary relief up to 50% can be made by any rural business, if they meet the following criteria;

 Rural relief is only applicable to occupied properties

 The business must be situated in a rural area that has a population of no more than 3,000 residents on the 31st December of the preceding financial year.

 The business property must have a rateable value of no more than £16,500

Page 275

Non-domestic Discretionary Rates Relief Policy April 2019

Business accounts for the previous two years showing profitability are required to determine levels of relief against the following;

Max. relief Gross profit as a % to be of turnover awarded

Up to 20% 50%

21% - 25% 40%

26% - 30% 30%

31% - 35% 20%

36% - 40% 10%

Over 40% 0%

Relief is allocated for one year only, and updated accounts are required to be submitted for review with each further annual application. Where a business is in its first two years of trading, relief will be based on a realistic forecast of future trading, and may take into account previous occupants or performance of similar businesses in the area.

2.2.11 Town centre improvement relief Quality of ‘place’ is a significant factor in the economic vitality of the Harrogate District. It is therefore important that our town centres are seen as vibrant and attractive places to live, work, visit and do business.

Harrogate Borough Council would like to support local small business owners to improve the appearance of business premises in our town centres. A fund of up to £50,000 is being made available across the district to support the external re-decoration of properties with a rateable value of up to £50,000. This relief is also available to unoccupied business properties that meet the criteria. Town Centre Improvement Relief will be available in the “town centre” areas as defined of Boroughbridge, Harrogate, Knaresborough, Masham, Pateley Bridge and Ripon to help maintain the overall aesthetics of these areas.

Applicants are required to submit current photographs showing the state of the building and a quote for the decoration works to be carried out to provide assurance of the quality and longevity of the work to be undertaken and ensure proposals are in keeping with the local area. HBC will at this point approve applications and on proof of completion of the works will award relief of up to £1000 against the current years business rates liability.

Page 276

Non-domestic Discretionary Rates Relief Policy April 2019

3 Rate relief for non- profit making organisations Equally important in considering our district is the development and maintenance of our community. The mix of urban and rural populations in the Harrogate District brings with it challenges around transportation and access to services. Ensuring community groups and local activities are developed and sustained helps to reduce potential for isolation and depletion of community activities and contacts.

3.1 Mandatory reliefs for organisations The Local Government Finance Act 1988 requires the Council to grant mandatory rate relief of 80% of the business rate liability in the following cases;

 Registered charities where the property is wholly or mainly used for charitable purposes

 Clubs registered with HMRC as a Community Amateur Sports Club (CASC)

Where a property is owned by a charity, or its trustees and it appears than when next in use, the property will continue to be used mainly for charitable purposes; the ratepayer will qualify for a mandatory allowance of 100% on the unoccupied charge payable.

HBC has no discretion in awarding mandatory relief, however must be satisfied that the statutory criteria are met. Any concerns over the status of an organisation will be reviewed against the available case law.

Appeals against refusal to grant relief must be made to the Magistrate’s Court at a liability hearing.

3.2 Discretionary relief for organisations There is a legislative requirement for businesses and organisations to identify mandatory rate reliefs applicable to their rateable property before applying for discretionary relief. Harrogate Borough Council recognises that not all businesses or organisations will fit into the above categories and will consider each application for discretionary relief on its own merit. The Council recognises the valuable role played by clubs and organisations within the community, however as any relief granted is paid by the tax payers of the district, it is important that the benefit to the tax payer is considered as part of the evaluation.

Applications for up to 100% discretionary relief can be submitted by not for profit organisations whose aims are charitable or otherwise philanthropic and in the interest of Harrogate Borough Council residents, concerning the promotion of social welfare, education, science, literature or the arts.

Applications may also be submitted where a property is mainly used for the purpose of recreation and all or part of the property is occupied as a club, society or other organisation not established or conducted for profit.

Page 277

Non-domestic Discretionary Rates Relief Policy April 2019 3.2.1 General evaluation criteria The following criteria must be met;

 No membership exclusions on the grounds of protected characteristics as defined within the Equalities Act

 The cost of access to club services is not excessive and prohibitive to general membership from all residents of the district.

 Quality of life within the community would be significantly affected if relief was not granted

 No other organisations are providing similar services or facilities within the local area

 No licenced bar open year round to a regular opening schedule outside of events and activities.

Benefit to district residents

To ensure discretionary relief is being considered in terms of benefit to the district, the percentage of membership being met from within the Harrogate district should be considered as follows;

Residents of Harrogate District Maximum as a percentage of overall relief membership award

Over 74% 25%

50% to 74% 15%

Below 50% 0%

Provision of services to youth groups, special interest groups or groups identified under the equalities act

HBC encourages the development of facilities and opportunities to support young people within the district for both their personal development and support needs, particularly where membership or attendance is free of charge, or at appropriately reduced rates, and the facility complements other council run developments. Other special interest services are welcomed where there is a positive impact on the community served by the facility and loss of the facility would be detrimental to the health and/or wellbeing of its membership.

Page 278

Non-domestic Discretionary Rates Relief Policy April 2019

Provision of services to youth, Maximum special interest or groups relief under the equalities act award

All services targeted at one or 25% more of the above groups

Active programme in place to 10% target the above groups

Reduced fee structure in place 5% for the above groups

Self-financing

To establish sustainable, local organisations the council is keen to support those who demonstrate good financial management and self-sufficiency where possible. This does not exclude the receipt of external income through grants, however fund raising events and subscriptions can also help fund raising, and contribute to the community value of the organisation. The award levels associated with self-financing are therefore set to encourage organisations to increase their self- financing income levels as follows;

Self-financing income Maximum relief award

Over 74% 25%

50% to 74% 15%

Below 50% 0%

Levels of reserves

Whilst the levels of reserves held by an organisation can vary significantly, they need to be evaluated proportionally to the rate liability due for the property.

Reserves or savings as a Maximum percentage of rate liability relief award

Below 100% 25%

Page 279

Non-domestic Discretionary Rates Relief Policy April 2019

100% - 299% 15%

Over 300% (500% for hospices) 0%

3.2.2 Charities and CASCs Some organisations eligible for the 80% relief above may also apply for discretionary top up relief up to 100% of their rates liability.

Academy, free, grant maintained, faith and trust status schools will not be granted discretionary relief, unless a special case for hardship can be proved under which circumstances an application under this category should be submitted (section 2.2.4)

This discretionary relief will be awarded proportionally against the criteria in 3.2.1.

Page 280

Non-domestic Discretionary Rates Relief Policy April 2019 Non-domesticRateRelief Page:1

Non-domesticDisretionaryRatesReliefPolicy Non-domesticDisretionaryRatesReliefPolicy

This report was generated on 14/02/19. Overall 6 respondents completed this questionnaire. The report has been filtered to show the responses for 'All Respondents'.

The following charts are restricted to the top 12 codes. Lists are restricted to the most recent 100 rows.

Have you read the non-domestic discretionary rates relief policy?

Yes (5) 83%

No (1) 17%

Did you understand the non-domestic discretionary rates relief policy?

Yes (4) 67%

No (2) 33%

Do you agree with the introduction of mobile infrastructure business rate relief?

Yes (6) 100%

No (-)

Do you agree with the introduction of retail relief?

Yes (5) 100%

No (-)

If no, please explain your answer: It should also include empty shops and offices relief. When a business is operational there is cash flow to pay the bills, you are bankrupting those empty building owners who have lost their income stream and therefore cannot keep up with rates payments

Do you agree with the amendments to section 2.2.3 discretionary business rate relief?

Yes (5) 83%

No (1) 17%

Page 281

SnapSnap snapsurveys.comsnapsurveys.com Non-domesticRateRelief Page:2

Non-domesticDisretionaryRatesReliefPolicy If no, please explain your answer: There should be no rates chargeable against businesses in the UK at all. This is just another form of taxation and you provide no services in exchange for their money it is another political swindle. Your policies have crippled UK business growth and encourage our entrepreneurs to leave the UK to set up overseas.

Are there any other areas you would like to see to included or amended in the non- domestic discretionary rates relief policy? I believe all business rates should be scrapped altogether. I also believe that council staff numbers be reduced as should be the number of councillors. They should be retained to develop their own businesses Children Day nursery and daycare provision that is registered with OFSTED.

Page 282

SnapSnap snapsurveys.comsnapsurveys.com Agenda Item 9

Agenda Item No.9

REPORT TO: Management Board/Cabinet

DATE: 18 March 2019/ 27 March 2019

SERVICE AREA: Revenues, Welfare and Customer Services

REPORTING OFFICER: Customer Centre Manager Michelle Blackburn

SUBJECT: Ripon Customer Centre Delivery

WARD/S AFFECTED: ALL DISTRICT

FORWARD PLAN REF: N/A

1.0 PURPOSE OF REPORT

1.1 To recommend options for maximising service delivery in Ripon Customer Centre whilst managing the levels of resourcing required on site.

2.0 RECOMMENDATION/S

2.1 The responses to the consultation in Appendix B are noted.

2.2 The equalities impact assessment at Appendix C is noted

2.3 The proposed relocation of services from Ripon Customer Centre to Ripon Community House and supporting service delivery arrangements is agreed for implementation from 1 June 2019.

3.0 RECOMMENDED REASON/S FOR DECISION/S

3.1 The preferred option gives us the opportunity to use resources more efficiently, maintain service levels for our residents within the town and surrounding villages, and help support a local community group.

4.0 ALTERNATIVE OPTION/S CONSIDERED AND RECOMMENDED FOR REJECTION (Must be used for reports to Cabinet & Cabinet Members)

4.1 To reject the preferred option and ask for other potential solutions to be investigated.

4.2 To continue with the current service delivery model 5.0 THE REPORT Page 283 1

5.1 Introduction

5.1.1 In 2012, as part of a wider project looking at customer service deliver, the decision was taken to create a dedicated Customer Centre (CC) in Ripon Town Hall. This expanded the service delivery available from the site from what was previously a cash payment service on a Thursday and Friday of each week.

5.1.2 At the same time, standard partnership arrangements were put in place with partners throughout the district to deliver services on behalf of Harrogate Borough Council. These arrangements are still in place and provide a network of face to face contact points throughout the district. Partnerships are with Nidderdale Plus, Mashamshire Community Office and Boroughbridge Town Council. Appendix A outlines the funding model in place.

5.1.3 The Customer Centre in Ripon is operated by members of the Customer Centre team who also manage the Harrogate Customer Centre, incoming phone lines and online correspondence. The current operating hours for the Ripon Customer Centre are as follows:

Customer Centre  Mon – Thu 8:30 to 16:45  Fri 8:30 to 16:15 We have recently started to close for lunch 13:30-14:30 daily, reducing the resourcing from three officers per day to two, allowing us to maintain the wider service delivery through the lunchtime period, management of the cash machine and reduce risks around lone working.

Surgeries are undertaken during the week with officers undertaking appointments and drop-ins as follows; Welfare – Tuesday Local Taxation – Thursday Taxi licencing – first Friday of each month

5.1.4 As pressure on services increases, we need to make sure we are using the available resources effectively to meet our customer needs.

A service review in 2018 resulted in the introduction of the Customer Centre team and resourcing levels being reduced from 21.75 full time equivalents (FTE) to 16.25 FTE to deliver front line customer service. During the same period, an overall increase in customer contacts from 275,332 to 336,451 has been experienced (see section 5.1.5 below). The shift in contact channel traffic means we need to reprioritise to ensure customers receive the same excellent level of service, independent of the communication channel they choose to use. Online correspondence must receive the same level of attention and response as telephone and face to face contacts so customers using this medium don’t change back to other more costly channels because they feel they are receiving a poorer service.

Page 284 2

5.1.5 Overall Customer Contact Figures:

Web/Email Telephone Face to face TOTAL 2016/17 19,221 (7%) 192,373 (70%) 63,738 (23%) 275,332 2017/18 64,092 (19%) 212,354 (63%) 60,005 (18%) 336,451 2018/19 44,513 (20%) 139,195 (64%) 34,521 (16%) 218,229 (Q1-Q3)

5.1.6 Footfall data for Harrogate and Ripon Customer Centres 2017/18:

AREA HARROGATE RIPON Access to Services 28,796 8,012 Payments 12,652 10,545 Other NA 128 Total 41,448 18,685

5.1.7 The majority of the contacts at Ripon are for payments. Face to face contacts are decreasing overall so by shifting our resources more towards the Web and phones we can provide a better service to our customers using preferred channels; by offering the face to face service in Community House we can still provide a quality service, but can use our other resources more effectively.

5.1.8 Less than 1/2 of the total customer service face to face footfall is seen at Ripon, however two to three officers are required on site on any day to deliver this.

5.2 Dismissed options

5.2.1 We need to ensure we are managing resources and customer contacts effectively and the current set up in Ripon is resource intensive. We have therefore reviewed internally and dismissed a number of potential different options to address this:

5.2.2 Option 1: Reduced opening at the Customer Centre - Footfall information identifies that Mondays, Thursdays (market day) and Fridays are the busiest times. We could therefore amend the opening hours for the customer service centre to operate Monday and Thursday 9:00 to 17:00, and Friday to 16:30 to mirror the times of highest demand. Coupled with this, closure from 13:30 to 14:30 for lunch to reduce the number of employees required on site to mitigate lone working risks. This would still reduce the service availability, and require resourcing.

5.2.3 Option 2: Ripon City Council – Ripon City Council operates from the Town Hall site managing the use of the Council Chamber and other meeting rooms within the building. They have office space for administrators and are open Monday and Thursdays, 9:00 to 12:30 and 13:30 to 16:00.

Option two is to ask Ripon City Council to operate Customer Service in Ripon on behalf of HBC as a Customer Access Point in a similar way to service delivery in Masham, Pateley Bridge and Boroughbridge for an annual payment of £5,000. The arrangement could be extended to cover Tourist Information removing the need for any HBC presence in Ripon Town Page 285 3

Hall. However there are a number of disadvantages with this option.  RCC operating hours are significantly limited  They have never undertaken this type of service delivery before and would therefore need significant training and development  Footfall to the site is lower than Harrogate however remains significantly higher than other areas of the district

5.2.4 Option 3: Citizens Advice – offices are located on Duck Hill, however are only open for 2 ½ hours on a Tuesday and Thursday, with no capacity to provide customer self-service options.

5.2.5 Option 4: Ripon Library – the library is adjacent to the bus station. The site provides both a library service and assistance with blue badge applications but no other NYCC services.

5.2.6 Option 5: close - an option that is not supported, but should be included for completeness is to close the site completely and withdraw services from Ripon. This is not supported as it would impact on a large number of residents, and reduce service delivery to the North of the district.

5.3 The preferred option

5.3.1 Situated next to the Workhouse Museum, Ripon Community House provides a community facility and is operated by volunteers 9:00 to 17:00 Mon – Thu and 16:00 on a Friday. There are close links to the voluntary sector and providing support to the more vulnerable elements of the community.

5.3.2 A public consultation has allowed us to find out the opinion of various people who would be affected by a move from the Town Hall. The results can be found in Appendix B, and are summarised below.

A total of 105 responses were received. Of these, 72% of respondents were residents. The remaining respondents were made up of Customer Service Centre Users (17%), Ripon Community House Users (15%), Ripon Community House Tenants (12%) and Ripon City Councillors (1%). Another 12% of respondents did not feel that they fit in one of these categories.

74% or respondents were in favour of the preferred option to deliver services from Ripon Community House. This result was split into the categories as follows: 69% of Residents, 100% of Ripon Community House Tenants, 66% of Community House Users, 100% of Customer Centre Users and other respondents.

Page 286 4

5.3.3 The main concerns of those against the proposals are shown in the table below with our response. An equality impact assessment has been completed and can be found in Appendix C:

Concern Raised Response Access issues to Community House is located an equal distance Community House from from the bus station as Ripon Town Hall, a walk the bus station/ town of approximately 3 minutes. It also takes centre approximately 3 minutes to walk from the Town Hall to Community House (source: Google Maps) Disability Access – The access for disabled customers at current customers have Community House is equal to the Town Hall if sited the ease of access not better, due to the proximity of designated to the current site for disabled parking bays in addition to ramped disabled customers access. The building is disability compliant and an onsite carpark means that those travelling by car can park closer than they can currently. Onsite Parking – Use of the car park by HBC staff would be concerns raised from limited to a maximum of 2. The majority of current users of visitors to the Town Hall have an average Community House over length of stay of less than 5 minutes so there the parking provision should be little impact on current users of the car park, although with a free onsite carpark this should make it easier for current customers. There is also a significant amount of 3 hour disc parking directly outside Community House. It will be difficult to There is no provision to take payments at make payments for Community House, however from 1st April all Housing Rent and Council Tax Customers will be able to pay at Council Tax either a PayPoint or Post Office location of which there are numerous available in the Ripon area. A promotional campaign is currently taking place to inform customers of this facility. Housing tenants already have the ability to make payments through Pay Points and Post Offices. What will happen to the This is not in the scope of this report. However Town Hall? the Town Hall will still be used by Tourist Information and Ripon City Council. People don’t know Before relocating an extensive marketing where Community campaign would take place to ensure that House is customers knew where to find our services once we have relocated.

5.3.4 When asked for alternative suggestions, none were provided.

5.3.5 Other comments worth noting were in favour of the move but they would like to see the Town Hall put to better use, art exhibitions etc. however this is out of scope for this report.

5.3.6 Budget is available within the existing customer centre cost centre (1269) to Page 287 5

cover the £5,500 cost of funding this option.

6.0 REQUIRED ASSESSMENTS AND IMPLICATIONS

6.1 The following were considered: Financial Implications; Human Resources Implications; Legal Implications; ICT Implications; Strategic Property/Asset Management Considerations; Risk Assessment; Equality and Diversity (the Public Sector Equality Duty and impact upon people with protected characteristics). If applicable, the outcomes of any consultations, assessments, considerations and implications considered necessary during preparation of this report are detailed below.

6.2 Financial implications – the preferred option will be delivered from existing budgets.

7.0 CONCLUSIONS

7.1 This service delivery model is already successfully in place at several of our partner sites across the district. Provision is available to support the proposal within existing budgets.

7.2 The review of service delivery in Ripon gives us the opportunity to use resources more efficiently, maintain service levels within the town, and help support a local community group.

7.3 The consultation shows that people were largely in favour of the move to Community House.

7.4 Transferring operations to the Ripon Community House, provides face to face services to residents, and meeting room space for surgeries giving continuous provision in the town and with no detrimental effect to customers. An HBC officer would co-locate on site for the first six months to support knowledge transfer and ensure a smooth transition. This allows for consolidation of resources to manage across the different communication channels more effectively, allowing us to continue delivering excellent customer service within existing budget provision.

OFFICER CONTACT: Please contact Michelle Blackburn Customer Centre Manager if you require any further information on the contents of this report. The officer can be contacted by e-mail – [email protected]

Page 288 6

Appendix A Customer Access Point Modular Arrangements

Service Area Detail Proposed Funding per annum

Customer  Use of the building as a base for a Customer Access Point to Harrogate £5,000 Access Point Borough Council services during normal office hours  Display and store current council customer service information and leaflets  Facilitate customer transactions and processes through the HBC website  Provide access to HBC staff by telephone during office hours - general enquiries 01423 500600  Telephone HBC staff on customer’s behalf where required if are unable to deal with the query from the resources available  Attempt to answer an information query using the resources available  Take ownership of a customer enquiry and try to answer it. Where this cannot be achieved suggest other organisations who may be able to help.  Undertake training with HBC to gain a clear understanding of what services can be delivered and how Page 289 Page  Occasional access within normal working hours to meeting/office space for officers, honorary officers or members of Harrogate Borough Council in relation to their roles and responsibilities of the delivery of services run at the Customer Access Points.

Customer self-  Provide facilities for customers to access Harrogate Borough Council and £500 service partner web sites including a broadband connection and workspace to accommodate a desktop PC with an appropriate chair  Provide assistance to customers to enable them to self-serve

Networking  Attendance of partners, volunteers and representatives at 6 monthly event held NA and update around the district. events

This page is intentionally left blank Non-domesticRateRelief Page:1

Non-domesticDisretionaryRatesReliefPolicy Non-domesticDisretionaryRatesReliefPolicy

This report was generated on 14/02/19. Overall 6 respondents completed this questionnaire. The report has been filtered to show the responses for 'All Respondents'.

The following charts are restricted to the top 12 codes. Lists are restricted to the most recent 100 rows.

Have you read the non-domestic discretionary rates relief policy?

Yes (5) 83%

No (1) 17%

Did you understand the non-domestic discretionary rates relief policy?

Yes (4) 67%

No (2) 33%

Do you agree with the introduction of mobile infrastructure business rate relief?

Yes (6) 100%

No (-)

Do you agree with the introduction of retail relief?

Yes (5) 100%

No (-)

If no, please explain your answer: It should also include empty shops and offices relief. When a business is operational there is cash flow to pay the bills, you are bankrupting those empty building owners who have lost their income stream and therefore cannot keep up with rates payments

Do you agree with the amendments to section 2.2.3 discretionary business rate relief?

Yes (5) 83%

No (1) 17%

Page 291

SnapSnap snapsurveys.comsnapsurveys.com Non-domesticRateRelief Page:2

Non-domesticDisretionaryRatesReliefPolicy If no, please explain your answer: There should be no rates chargeable against businesses in the UK at all. This is just another form of taxation and you provide no services in exchange for their money it is another political swindle. Your policies have crippled UK business growth and encourage our entrepreneurs to leave the UK to set up overseas.

Are there any other areas you would like to see to included or amended in the non- domestic discretionary rates relief policy? I believe all business rates should be scrapped altogether. I also believe that council staff numbers be reduced as should be the number of councillors. They should be retained to develop their own businesses Children Day nursery and daycare provision that is registered with OFSTED.

Page 292

SnapSnap snapsurveys.comsnapsurveys.com Equality Impact Analysis If you need any guidance or assistance completing your Equality Impact Analysis contact Emma McIntosh (Engagement Officer) The equality impact analysis (EIA) process ensures that we do not [email protected] disadvantage customers and staff who have Protected Characteristics (https://www.gov.uk/guidance/equality-act-2010- *Evidence could include information from consultations; voluntary guidance). In addition to publishing equality information every year group feedback; satisfaction and usage data (i.e. complaints, the EIA is the council’s main way of ensuring we meet our Statutory surveys, and service data); and reviews of previous strategies Public Sector Equality Duty under the Equality Act 2010. YOUR GUIDE TO COMPLETING AN EQUALITY IMPACT It is important to consider the equality impact before designing or ANALYSIS changing a policy, project or service in any way. You should complete an EIA when considering any sized project which will Section 1 impact people including: In Section 1 identify background information to the policy, project or service you are analysing.

Page 293 Page  Developing a service specification  Commissioning a service Section 2  Providing a new service to residents In Section 2 highlight any likely impact on equalities as a result of the  New staff working procedure policy, project or service. You must have evidence* to support this.  Refreshing and updating a policy Impacts can be positive and negative  Removal of service  Developing a strategy Section 3 Create an action plan which explains what you will be doing as a  Changing a service result of carrying out this analysis  As part of consultation process

 Changes to services delivered jointly with other agencies Section 4 The responsible officer (completing this assessment) must now There are 4 sections to this Equality Impact Analysis. Answer all the check the analysis and sign Section 4 and have the relevant senior sections and questions. If you are unable to answer any questions manager also check and approve this analysis, and sign the relevant this indicates you need more work so that you can answer the part of Section 4. Monitor and review your policy, project or service question with confidence and evidence*. once it has been implemented to ensure any future adverse effects are mitigated. Ensuring the Equality Impact Analysis is kept up to date will from a core part of this.

1 SECTION 1

Name of activity/policy/project/decision/function being Ripon Customer Service Delivery assessed Aims of policy/project/service To relocate Harrogate Borough Council service deliver in Ripon to Ripon Community House. Is this new or existing? New Who is responsible for policy or decision, or advising Management Board/ Cabinet. Revenues, Welfare and Customer Serivces Manager on decision, and also responsible for this equality analysis What customer/profile data have you already got? Number of customers using the service. Feedback from a public consultation exercise. What does it tell you about who is currently

using/accessing 294 Page the service? What information/evidence do you have on current and We have seen an overall drop in people accessing services face to face, however want future service users and what impact could the change to ensure this continues to be an option for our Customers in Ripon. The change make? means this option is still available through a partnership arrangement with Ripon Community House.

What consultation (either new for the purpose of this A consultation exercise has been undertaken with 105 responses received. This was change or carried out previously, but relevant) has advertised online, in our Customer Centres, with partners and in the Residents been carried out to engage service users on the newsletter. change? Who are the customers/Stakeholders of the service? Residents and businesses in the district.

List the information and evidence you are using to Footfall statistics and the responses received to the public consultation. inform this equality analysis. Summarise the key findings of the information listed The proposal will not impact on equalities and all concerns raised in the consultation above exercise have been addressed.

2 SECTION 2

Do you have enough information to complete section 2? If not then you will need to complete some engagement/research with the service area to know your customer

2.1 Negative Impact? Is the likely effect to be Please describe the effect and evidence that How will you ensure the negative impact is negative on any of the supports this* removed? Protected Characteristics Copy into the action plan listed below (please mark all that apply) Yes No Age X Location information and distances from public transport links as detailed in the

Page 295 Page report. Disability X Location information and distances from public transport links as detailed in the report. Gender re- X No proposals impact on this area assignment Pregnancy X Location information and distances from and public transport links as detailed in the maternity report. Race X No proposals impact on this area

Religion or X No proposals impact on this area belief

Sex X No proposals impact on this area Sexual X No proposals impact on this area Orientation Marriage/ X No proposals impact on this area

3 Civil partnerships

*Evidence could include information from consultations; voluntary group feedback; satisfaction and usage data (i.e. complaints, surveys, and service data); and reviews of previous strategies.

2.2 How are you going to address any negative impact? Which of the options below best describes how you are going to Answer address the impact described above?

1. No major change - the Equality Impact Analysis demonstrates that No major change required. the policy is robust and that the evidence shows no potential for

discrimination 296 Page and that all opportunities to promote equality have been taken. 2. Adjust the policy to remove barriers or better promote equality.

3. Continue the policy despite potential for adverse impact or missed opportunities to promote equality.

4. Urgent action must be taken if the policy shows actual or potential unlawful discrimination contact Emma McIntosh, Engagement Officer

2.3. Positive Impact?

4

Is the likely effect to Provide examples of good equality practice or How will you promote equality and be positive (please benefits to people with protected characteristics communicate good practice? mark all that apply arising from the implementation of this Yes No service/policy etc Copy into the action plan in Section 3 Age X Better parking options close to the site.

Disability X The presence of disabled parking bays on site.

Gender re- X No proposals impact on this area assignment Pregnancy X The site offers a range of classes for new and parents meaning that customers can carryout maternity their business at a single location. Race 297 Page X No proposals impact on this area

Religion or X No proposals impact on this area belief

Sex X No proposals impact on this area

Sexual X No proposals impact on this area Orientation Marriage/ X No proposals impact on this area Civil partnerships What measures does and could the policy include to promote equality and foster good Partnership service delivery enables face to relations face service delivery to continue, but ensures more resource can be used to support other communication channels where we are seeing an increase in usage. SECTION 3

5

ACTION PLAN

The Public Sector Equality Duty is also a continuing duty, requiring attention and a review of decisions post-implementation. Therefore, every Equality Impact Analysis should result in an action plan that sets out the arrangements for reviewing the actual impact of a new policy or changes to an existing policy once it has been implemented.

The action plan could include actions in the following categories:

• Involvement and consultation; • Further data collection and evidence gathering; • mitigating disproportionate or adverse impact; and/or • taking any opportunity to advance equality and foster good relations. Page 298 Page

You can produce the action plan by using the template below or by creating one on Covalent. This link provides guidance on producing an action plan in Covalent or through service planning.

Action By when 1 Review the changes to ensure no adverse effects have been seen as a result of End of 2019 the implementation 2 3 4 SECTION 4

Based on the information in section 2, what is the decision of the responsible officer (please select one option below): Tick here No negative equality impact (your analysis shows there is no impact) - sign assessment below [ X ] Please summarise your responses here ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. Adverse impact but continue (record objective justification for continuing despite the impact)-complete sections below [ ]

This EIA had been checked and Alison Wilson Date 07/03/2019

6 approved by responsible officer (sign and print name) This EIA has been checked and Date approved by senior manager (sign and print name)

(1) Attach your completed Equality Impact Analysis to your decision/recommendation report (2) Please send the completed Equality Impact Analysis to Emma McIntosh, Engagement Officer, [email protected] (3) Upload the completed Equality Impact Analysis to the relevant service improvement action on covalent

Date of Equality Impact Analysis Review: …………………………………………………. Even after your activity/policy/project/decision/function has been implemented; it is recommended that analysis is undertaken every three years,

and 299 Page that this analysis is updated at any significant points in between. The purpose of any update is that the actual effects will only be known after the implementation of your policy, project or service. Additionally, area demographics could change, leading to different needs, alternative provision can become available, or new options to reduce an adverse effect could become apparent.

7 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 10

Agenda Item No. 10

REPORT TO: Cabinet

DATE: 27/03/2019

SERVICE AREA: Housing & Property

REPORTING OFFICER: Mr Jim Clemans (Operations Manager (Contractor))

SUBJECT: APPOINTMENT OF SUPPLIERS FOR THE PROVISION OF BUILDING MATERIALS

WARD/S AFFECTED: ALL DISTRICT

FORWARD PLAN REF: Key Decision No. 0099HP18 A

1.0 PURPOSE OF REPORT

1.1 The purpose of this report is to seek Cabinet approval to appoint (1)Travis Perkins Plc, (for the supply of General Building, Plumbing and Kitchen Materials), and (2) City Electrical Factors Ltd, (for the supply of Electrical materials) as the principal merchants for the provision of construction materials to the In House Maintenance Team (IHMT) and In House Development Team (IHDT), selected via direct award appointments using the Cirrus Consortium & Procurement-hub, procurement frameworks respectively.

2.0 RECOMMENDATION/S

2.1 That Cabinet approves the appointment of the recommended suppliers, namely (1)Travis Perkins Plc and (2) City Electrical Factors Ltd under call off contracts from the respective framework agreements for the terms set out in paragraph 5.6 below.

2.1 That Cabinet delegates authority to the Head of Service (Housing & Property) to negotiate and enter into these contracts.

3.0 RECOMMENDED REASON/S FOR DECISION/S

3.1 Financial provision for necessary support is available within budget.

3.2 The current contractual arrangements are coming to an end and there is an ongoing requirement for a cost effective and efficient supplies service. The procurement exercise carried out is compliant with the Public Contracts Page 301 1

Regulations 2015.

4.0 ALTERNATIVE OPTION/S CONSIDERED AND RECOMMENDED FOR REJECTION

4.1 Not to award the contracts. This would leave the Council without the ability to deliver a timely and cost effective repairs service to its customers and meet agreed repairs and upgrade turnaround times and also impact on the delivery of the Council’s development projects.

5.0 THE REPORT

5.1 The Housing and Property Team have utilised the services of trade specific materials suppliers for the past five years. The services of these suppliers were obtained via mini competition managed by a framework provider. This ensured that, given the level of expenditure, the arrangement was compliant with the Public Contracts Regulations 2006.

5.2 This contract has now expired and to remain compliant, an exercise has been conducted, in collaboration with the HBC’s Procurement Unit, to locate suitable suppliers of General Building, Plumbing, Electrical and Kitchen materials. A number of frameworks were reviewed with the latest Cirrus framework providing a suitable solution to General Building, Plumbing and Kitchen materials. The Procurement Hub solution for Electrical materials was found to be more suitable for the Council as it provides materials for r for commercial as well as domestic electrical works.

Both frameworks allow the Council to directly award contracts to the 5.3 suppliers who are ranked 1st on the framework and the Council wishes to appoint these Suppliers on this basis.

The Council ensured that the 2 recommended suppliers were able to provide the circa 400 frequently used items identified from the Council’s purchase data. The following specified service requirements were also

assessed:

 Fast track over the counter service for ad-hoc and planned 5.4 collections

 Free next day deliveries of core products

 Branch opening times to reflect Council staff hours  Electronic van stock monitoring & management  Out of hours access to materials in an emergency  Ring-fencing of frequently used stock,

 Account access via web based portal

 Fixed core range prices for each 6 month period. In addition we also conducted a bench marking exercise to ensure competitive pricing. Service delivery proposals, material costs and references were submitted by 8 suppliers and evaluated by HBC officers. Feedback from branch visits made by HBC officers and engagement with merchants staff were also factors considered in the selection process. The Page 302 2

evaluation confirmed that both recommended suppliers offer the most 5.5 economically advantages and suitable solution to the Council

Cabinet approval is required to appoint both suppliers as the potential value of the contracts to be offered is over £500,000 over the initial contract period of three years. There is the option to extend by a further 2 x 1 year periods via the Procurement Hub framework and a further 1 year with the Cirrus framework at the sole discretion of the Council. The materials will be purchased from the Suppliers by way of individual orders of relatively small 5.6 value.

6.0 REQUIRED ASSESSMENTS AND IMPLICATIONS

6.1 The following were considered: Financial Implications; Human Resources Implications; Legal Implications; ICT Implications; Strategic Property/Asset Management Considerations; Risk Assessment; Equality and Diversity (the Public Sector Equality Duty and impact upon people with protected characteristics). If applicable, the outcomes of any consultations, assessments, considerations and implications considered necessary during preparation of this report are detailed below.

6.2 The exercise was carried out with the support of the Procurement Unit who have assessed that the process was carried out under a compliant route to award of contract.

7.0 CONCLUSIONS

7.1 Both Suppliers have been appointed as top ranked suppliers on the respective frameworks via a competitive process. Local benchmarking evidences their competitiveness to give confidence in the economically advantages solution to the council

7.2 Arrangements would be entered into under a call off contract under the respective framework Agreement for each Supplier

Background Papers – None

OFFICER CONTACT: Please contact James Clemans, if you require any further information on the contents of this report. The officer can be contacted at The Officer can be contacted at the Civic Centre, St Luke’s Avenue, Harrogate, by telephone on 01423 500 600 Ext 51119 or by e-mail – [email protected]

Page 303 3

Page 304 4

Agenda Item 11

Agenda Item No. 11

REPORT TO: Cabinet

DATE: 27 March 2019

SERVICE AREA: Legal and Governance

REPORTING OFFICER: Head of Legal and Governance (Elizabeth Jackson – Democratic Services Manager)

SUBJECT: KEY DECISIONS: FINANCIAL THRESHOLDS

WARD/S AFFECTED: All

FORWARD PLAN REF: N/A ______

1.0 PURPOSE OF REPORT

1.1 To decide on the financial thresholds for key decisions for the year to 31 March 2020.

2.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

2.1 Cabinet is asked to consider whether the current thresholds detailed in this report are adequate or whether they require revision.

2.2 If suggested for revision then consequential amendment to Executive Procedure Rule 3.3 will need to be recommended to Council when it meets on 10 April 2019.

3.0 RECOMMENDED REASON FOR DECISION

3.1 To comply with the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Access to Information) (England) Regulations 2000 as amended.

4.0 ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS CONSIDERED AND RECOMMENDED FOR REJECTION

4.1 None

5.0 THE REPORT

5.1 Under the provisions of Regulation 8 of the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Access to Information) (England) Regulations 2000 as amended, key decisions are “executive decisions which are likely:-

Page 305 e:\moderngov\data\agendaitemdocs\4\8\9\ai00000984\$lwm4mr50.docx a. to result in the local authority incurring expenditure which is, or the making of savings which are, significant having regard to the local authority’s budget for the service or function to which the decision relates; or

b. to be significant in terms of its effect on communities living or working in an area comprising two or more wards or electoral divisions in the area for the local authority”

In relation to Part (b) the Council has already agreed that the effect on one ward will be used and therefore this report is addressed to the requirements of regulation 8(1)(a).

The regulation continues under paragraph (2) that in determining the meaning of “significant” for the purposes of paragraph (1) regard is to be had to any guidance for the time being issued by the Secretary of State. The guidance issued by the Secretary of State refers to the use of the effect on one ward but the financial thresholds to be fixed for key decisions are a matter for the authority on which no specific guidance has been issued.

5.2 The thresholds, which the Council has considered significant to date, were fixed in 2001, with the threshold for revenue expenditure raised from £100k to £150k by Council in April 2014. The law requires that these thresholds are reviewed annually. The current financial thresholds are as follows:-

(i) revenue expenditure of £150,000; (ii) savings of £50,000; (iii) capital expenditure of £250,000; (iv) for decisions made by the Chief Executive, in exercise of emergency powers only, £300,000.

5.3 The purpose of setting financial thresholds for key decisions is that all key decisions must be shown in the Forward Plan. Key decisions may be called in for consideration by the Overview and Scrutiny Commission, which means that the Overview and Scrutiny Commission will delay the implementation of key decisions during an Overview and Scrutiny Process. Financial thresholds for key decisions are set out in rule 3.3 of the Executive Procedure Rules and the approval of Council will be required in the event that Cabinet recommends changes to the thresholds.

6.0 CONCLUSIONS

6.1 The Cabinet is required by law to recommend to Council the level of financial thresholds relating to key decisions, which will appear in the Forward Plan.

6.2 There has been no suggestion of a need to increase the relevant thresholds.

Page 306 7.0 REQUIRED ASSESSMENTS AND IMPLICATIONS

7.1 The following were considered: Financial Implications; Human Resources Implications; Legal Implications; ICT Implications; Strategic Property/Asset Management Considerations; Risk Assessment; Equality and Diversity (the Public Sector Equality Duty and impact upon people with protected characteristics). If applicable, the outcomes of any consultations, assessments, considerations and implications considered necessary during preparation of this report are detailed below.

Background Papers - None

OFFICER CONTACT: Please contact Elizabeth Jackson, Democratic Services Manager, if you require any further information on the contents of this report. The Officer can be contacted at Democratic Services, PO Box 787, Harrogate HG1 9RW by telephone on (01423) 500600 ext 58593 or by Email – [email protected]

Page 307 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 12

Agenda Item No. 12

NOT FOR PUBLICATION: Appendices C and E to this report contain information considered to be exempt under Paragraph 2 & 4 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972 as amended

REPORT TO: Cabinet

DATE: 27th March 2019

SERVICE AREA: Culture, Tourism and Sport

REPORTING OFFICERS: Head of Culture, Tourism and Sport Michael Constantine Change Manager, Culture, Tourism and Sport Tim Hepworth

SUBJECT: Ripon Leisure Centre – Harry’s Place Childcare

WARD/S AFFECTED: ALL DISTRICT

FORWARD PLAN REF: EC023Jan08

1.0 PURPOSE OF REPORT

1.1 To seek Cabinet’s approval for closure of Harry’s Place Childcare (HPC) at Ripon Leisure Centre.

2.0 RECOMMENDATION/S

2.1 That Cabinet: I. Approves the proposed closure of the HPC facility at Ripon Leisure Centre. II. Notes the outcome of the public consultation. Appendix A III. Notes the equality impact assessment. Appendix B

3.0 RECOMMENDED REASON/S FOR DECISION/S

3.1 There has been a steady decline in HPC attendances over the last 4 years. In the financial year 2017/18 HPC operated at a net cost to the Council of £18,000.

3.2 Following a six week public consultation in summer 2018, a five month trail of measures designed to increase usage and income has produced an improvement in performance. However (even assuming the improvement could be sustained) the projected net cost of operation still remains above £20,000p.a.

3.2 Only 27% of HPC users during the trial have stayed on site to use the Page 309 1

leisure centre facilities. The projected net operating cost of £20,692p.a. for 2019/20 equates to a subsidy of £103 per visit for those users.

4.0 ALTERNATIVE OPTION/S CONSIDERED AND RECOMMENDED FOR REJECTION (Must be used for reports to Cabinet & Cabinet Members)

4.1 Retain the facility with its current format. The trial has highlighted that even with the benefit of income from non- leisure centre users, those who use HPC for childcare while they participate in on site activities are being subsidised at the rate of £103 per visit.

4.2 Reduce staff costs. Three staff members are employed. A minimum of two are required to operate HPC.

Throughout the whole of 2018 there have been no sessions at which attendance levels have required more than two staff. The “spare” member of staff is deployed to other duties, but is usually supernumerary.

One staff member at any HPC session needs to have a childcare qualification at level 2 or above. (All three current staff hold that qualification.)

In the case of any other staff assisting (based on the approach adopted at Little Explorers Day Nursery) where children under 2 years old are present, the council needs to be able to demonstrate that the assistants have adequate skills to look after young children. That “demonstration” typically means them having completed an appropriate training course.

HPC could therefore operate with two level 2 qualified staff, with each providing cover for the other during periods of sickness and leave. As HPC cannot operate with a single member of staff, a suitably trained casual assistant would need to be available to work.

If one crèche assistant post was deleted and a suitably trained casual staff member employed to cover leave and sickness, the net cost of operating the facility would reduce to £15,421 for 2019/20. (See Appendix C)

4.3 Reduce opening times. The table at section 5.5 shows that Friday is the most popular day for HPC use, accounting for 24% of attendances. Only opening of Friday and one of either Monday or Wednesday could save 60% of costs while retaining 44% of income.

The net annual operating cost would reduce to £8,090. However with only 0.8 parents/ carers using the leisure centre facility per session, the subsidy per centre user is still £101 per visit. (See Appendix C)

4.4 Combining reduced staffing and opening times. Reducing staffing and opening as above could reduce the net operating cost to £5,982 and the subsidy per centre user to £75 per visit. (See Appendix C)

Page 310 2

4.5 Extend trial period. The original trial period was set at 4 months (1/9/18 until 31/12/18). An additional 10 weeks of operational data has been gathered during 2019 and is included in Appendix D. A further extension seems unwarranted. Even if that produced an uplift of 50% to estimated income, the operating cost under the reduced staffing scenario would still exceed £13,000 p.a. with a subsidy per centre user of £65 per visit. (See Appendix C)

4.6 Unison and HPC staff have raised a number of questions and suggestions about the proposals set out in this report. Those are set out in Appendix E (confidential) along with officers’ responses.

5.0 THE REPORT

5.1 HPC operates one, two hour session each day, Monday to Friday. It is professionally supervised and looks after children aged from 12 weeks to 5 years. In April 2018 it charged £4.20 per child per session and until 1 September 2018 users had to remain on-site at the leisure centre.

Attendance data shows that there has been a significant fall in HPC use over the last 3 years. The figure of 11.8 attendances per session shown for 2015/16 is thought to be overstated. The income figures for each year suggest a recording error has taken place.

Ave attendance Annual income per session Apr 13 – Mar 14 5.3 £4,680 Apr 14 – Mar 15 6.9 £5,230 Apr 15 – Mar 16 11.8 £6,210 Apr 16 – Mar 17 4.6 £4,540 Apr 17 – Mar 18 3.7 £3,770 Apr 18 – Jan 2.3 £3,429 2019 (Forecast to year end)

5.2 In 2017 the council consulted in connection with building a new swimming pool adjacent to Ripon Leisure Centre. The consultation asked about crèche provision and 79% of respondents indicated that they would not use such a facility.

5.3 A six week public consultation ran between June 2018 and July 2018, regarding the future of this non-statutory service. The consultation results are attached as Appendix A.

5.4 The consultation feedback identified some changes which had the potential to reduce the net cost of operation.

It was agreed that a decision regarding the future of HPC would be delayed until January 2019, to allow time to see whether implementing the changes could increase attendances and income.

Consultation feedback Action taken Page 311 3

The main reason for not using HPC A budget was made available for was that people did not know it advertising and promotion. existed. 75% of respondents said they From the start of September 2018, would start to use HPC, or use it parents or carers have been more often, if they could leave the allowed to leave the leisure centre leisure centre during the 2 hour site during HPC sessions. sessions. 64% of users were prepared to pay From 1/9/18 fees were increased between £6 and £10 per session from £4.20 to £6.30 per session.

5.5 Trial results Average daily attendances have increased during the trial, despite the 50% increase in price.

On-site users Off-site users Total Apr 17 – Mar 18 3.7 - 3.7 Apr 18 – Aug 18 1.8 - 1.8 Sep18 – Jan 19 0.8 1.9 2.7

If results for September are disregarded (on the basis that the trail was only just launched), results break down as follows:

Oct 18 - Jan 19 Mon Tues Wed Thurs Friday Week On-site users 15 15 6 14 18 Off-site users 33 29 44 31 41 Total attendances 48 44 50 45 59 246

Weeks open 16 16 17 17 17

Ave on-site 0.9 0.9 0.4 0.8 1.1 0.8 Ave off-site 2.1 1.8 2.6 1.8 2.4 2.1 Ave all 3.0 2.8 2.9 2.6 3.5 3.0 % of attendances 20% 18% 20% 18% 24%

Whist the total number of attendances has increased during the trial, the number of parents/ carers remaining on-site to use the leisure centre facilities has fallen. It now represents 27% of attendances.

Full attendance data from April 2018 to February 2019 is attached as Appendix D.

5.6 Ad hoc conversations between centre staff and some HPC users have not identified that any of those going “off-site” are using the opportunity to visit Ripon Spa Baths. Most appear to use the time to go shopping, meet friends, have coffee or just take a break away from the child.

Whilst these are all perfectly understandable things which a parent or carer would seek to do; it does mean that the majority of the subsidy which supports the HPC operation is not actually delivering outcomes which align with the Council’s recently agreed Sport and Leisure Strategy.

Page 312 4

Based on the trial period, those who book their child into HPC (average 4 users per week) and stay on-site to use the centre’s facilities are being subsidised to the tune of circa £100 per visit.

5.7 Financial projections.

The actual net cost for 2017/18 is set out below along with projections for 2018/19 and 2019/20.

2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2019/20 (Actual) (Estimate) (Estimate) (Budget) Net cost £18,193 £20,011 £20,692 £20,730

The 2018/19 estimate reflects actual income to 31/1/19 and an assumption that the average income achieved by the trial between October and January can be sustained in February and March 2019.

The 2019/20 estimate is based on budgeted staff and other costs plus 12 months income at the trial average across October to January.

In the event of closure, the Council would achieve ongoing savings of circa £20,000p.a.

The annual saving would deliver over half for the target of miscellaneous savings which the service needs to deliver in 2019/20.

Details of the net cost breakdown and the target for miscellaneous savings are set out in (confidential) Appendix C.

No allowance has been made for the potential of customers cancelling their Brimhams memberships in the event of closure of HPC. Given the very low levels of HPC usage, it is likely that members who use HPC also use the facilities at other times and may not therefore cancel. There were 25 registered users of HPC in December. If 27% (7) of those users were to cancel, income of £3,444pa would be lost.

6.0 REQUIRED ASSESSMENTS AND IMPLICATIONS

6.1 The following were considered: Financial Implications; Human Resources Implications; Legal Implications; ICT Implications; Strategic Property/Asset Management Considerations; Risk Assessment; Equality and Diversity (the Public Sector Equality Duty and impact upon people with protected characteristics). If applicable, the outcomes of any consultations, assessments, considerations and implications considered necessary during preparation of this report are detailed below. 6.2 An Equality Impact Analysis has been completed and is attached as Appendix B 6.3 A six week public consultation was conducted during June and July 2018. The results of that consultation are set out in Appendix A. 6.4 Finance Comment: The 2019/20 budget for Sport & Leisure includes an unspecified savings target which exceeds £20,000. Savings or revenue growth equal to that amount needs to be identified, implemented and realised by the Service. If a decision was made to keep HPC open, then Page 313 5

alternative savings would need to be identified to meet the full savings target. 6.5 HR and Legal Services have been consulted regarding the preparation of this report and have provided advice on the implications of the closure of HPC. (See Appendix C) 6.6 A risk assessment has been undertaken and the risks have been assessed and noted.

7.0 CONCLUSIONS 7.1 Ripon Leisure Centre HPC continues to attract very low attendances. Officers consider that the cost of its continued operation cannot be justified. Closure would deliver budget savings of circa £20,000p.a. 7.2 If agreed by Cabinet, a closure date will be agreed between the CTS Portfolio Holder and Head of Service.

Background Papers – Appendix A (Public) – Public consultation results Appendix B (Public) – Equality Impact Assessment Appendix C (Exempt) – Legal advice and financial data Appendix D (Public) – HPC attendance data Appendix E (Exempt) –Questions raised by Unison and HPC staff and management responses

OFFICER CONTACT: Please contact Tim Hepworth, Change Manager - Culture Tourism and Sport, if you require any further information on the contents of this report. The officer can be contacted at (Organisational Development, PO Bo 787, Harrogate, HG1 9RW) 01423 500600 (Ext 58136) or by e-mail – [email protected]

Page 314 6

Appendix A – Ripon LC – Harry’s Place Childcare

Ripon Leisure Centre Crèche Consultation Partnership and Engagement Team 13th June to 30th July 2018

Total responses: Survey received 50 paper based responses, 46 electronic responses. 96 The survey was directly sent out to parents/carers who have used the Ripon Leisure Centre Creche in the last 12 months. Paper questionnaires were avaliable and handed out at Ripon Leisure Centre and Ripon Spa Baths. The survey was also available the Harrogate Borough Council web page ‘Have Your Say’ (www.harrogate.go.uk/haveyoursay).

Q1. What is you postcode?

72 amount within Ripon

Page 315 Page 19 amount within Harrogate District

3 amount from outside of Harrogate District

Two did not provide postcode

Q2. What is your gender? Male 6%Prefer not to 91% (87) respondents were female. state 3% 6% (6) respondents were male. Female Harrogate District demographic information below. 91%

Q3. When did you last use the Ripon Leisure Centre? In the last 6 months Never 17%

Page 316 Page 40% (38) of respondents have visited the Ripon Leisure In the last 23% Centre in the last week. More than 6 month 23% (22) of respondents have never visited Ripon Leisure months ago 8% 12% In the last week Centre. 40% 17% (16) or respondents have visited the Ripon Leisure Centre in the last 6 months.

Q4. If you have not used the crèche within the last 6 months, why not? I did not know there was a crèche 16

16 people did not know there was a crèche. Other reason 12 12 people gave another reason (noted in themed I have no children who need to attend 11 comments). The timing of the sessions are not right for me 11 11 people have no children who need to attend. 8 I do not use Ripon Leisure Centre Top three themed comments: The crèche costs too much 2  6, want to use the crèche in the future  5, were not aware of the crèche, 5 comments The quality of the crèche facility is poor 1  4, previously used the crèche when children were I use somewhere else 0 younger 0 5 10 15 20

Q5. Would you start to use the crèche, or use it more Maybe 17% often, if you could leave the leisure centre during the 2 hour session? No 8% 75% (63) respondents said yes. Yes 17% (14) of respondents said maybe. 75% 8% (7) of respondents said no.

£10,000 to Q6. If the crèche provision continues, what level of £1,000 to £18,000 per subsidy would be reasonable for it to receive? £9,999 per annum annum 31% 9% 54% (42) of respondents stated more than £18,000 per The crèche More than Page 317 Page annum would be a reasonable subsidy. should operate £18,000 per 31% (24) of respondents stated £10,000 to £18,000 per without subsidy annum annum would be a reasonable subsidy. 6% 54% 9% (7) of respondents stated £1,000 to £9,999 per annum would be a reasonable subsidy.

Q7. What age is the child/children attending the Child 1 attending Child 2 attending Child 3 attending crèche? Age of Number of Number of children Number of children child children attending attending attending

Under 1 8 2 1 year old 1 year old 11 2 0 2 years old 6 3 1 3 years old 6 5 0 4 years old 3 2 0 5 years old 3 1 0

Q8. During the last 6 months, on average, how often Four to five Less than times a week once a month have you used the crèche? Two to three 0% 14% times week 31% 31% (11) respondents stated that they used the crèche two Once a week to three times a week. 29% 29% (10) of respondents stated that they used the crèche once a week. 26% (9) of respondents stated that they use the crèche one One to three to three times a month . times a month 26%

Q9. When using the crèche what classes/facilities are you using in the leisure centre?

Themed free text comments: Class/facility attending Number attending

 Attend children centre playgroup, 6 comments Page 318 Page Gym sessions 24  Attend mini gymnastics, 2 comments Exercise classes 19  Using the gym, 1 comment  Did not know about the crèche, 1 comment Spinning class 14  Would go off site, 1 comment Sports hall 4  Other comments, 1 comment Other (noted beside) 10

£16-£20 per Q10. What is the maximum cost per child you would be session willing to pay for a two-hour crèche session at Ripon 0% £1 - £5 per Leisure Centre? session 36%

59% (33) of respondents would pay £6-£10 per session. £6 - £10 per session 36% (20) of respondents would pay £1-£5 per session. 59%

5% (3) of respondents would pay £11-£15 per session.

£11 - £15 per session 5%

Q11. If the crèche facility at Ripon Leisure Centre were to I wouldn't be able to attend close, what would you do? Other, please any state classes/use (maximum 76% (41) of respondents stated they wouldn't be able to attend the facilities 150 any classes/use the facilities. 76% characters): 9% (5) of respondents stated they would rely on friends/family 9% to look after their child/children. I would pay 9% (5) of respondents stated another reason, which is noted for my child to below. go to another paid childcare Top three themed free text comments: facility/provide I would rely r  I wouldn’t be able to attend any classes/use the facilities, 5 on 6% comments friends/family  Only crèche available in district leisure centres, 2 comments to look after  I would have to find alternative childcare, 2 comments my child/children 9% Page 319 Page About you

Q12. Which age category are you in? Q13. Do you consider that you have a Q14. How do you identify your disability under the Equality Act? ethnicity? 65% (60) of respondents were 30-44 years old. 89% (71) of respondents did not have a 91% (84) identified as being white 26% (24) of respondents were 16-29 disability. British years old. 6% (5) of respondents did have a disability. 4% (4) identified as white other

Prefer not Yes White White Prefer 60 to 74 30 to 44 to state 6% Irish other not to 0% 64% 5% 1% 5% state 75 to 89 3% 0% 16 to 29 26% 45 to 59 90+ 9% 0% No White 89% British Prefer 91% not to state 1% Q15. What is your relationship status? Q16. Are you pregnant or given birth Harrogate District demographic within the last 26 weeks? information, taken from 2011 68% (62) of respondents stated they were Census: married/civil partnership. 80% (73) of respondents stated they were not Page 320 Page 17% (16) or respondents were cohabiting. pregnant or given birth in the last 26 weeks. Total Population: 157,869 14% (13) of respondents stated they were pregnant or given birth in the last 26 weeks. Gender: Female: 51.2%, Male: 48.8%

Married/ Age: civil 16-29 years old: 18.3%, partnership Yes 30-44 years old: 19.4%, 68% 14% No 45-64 years old: 29.4% 80% Prefer Single Prefer not Cohabiting not to Disability: 10% to say 17% state 6% 15.6% of districts population is 2% disabled Divorced/ Separated Ethnicity: dissolved Widowed 1% 1% 1% White British: 91.67%, White Irish: 0.49% White Other: 4.10%

Relationship Status: Married: 53.5% Single: 27% Divorced/dissolved: 9.6% Widowed: 7.6% Separated: 2.2%

Cross tabulations

Q.2 What is your gender against: Female Male Prefer not to state

Page 321 Page Q3. When did you last use Ripon leisure Centre In the last week 37 0 0 In the last month 6 2 0 In the last 6 months 16 1 0 More than 6 months 12 0 0 Never 16 3 3 Q4. If you have not used the crèche within the last months, why not? I have no children who need to attend 9 0 2 The timing of the sessions are not right for me 10 1 0 The quality if the crèche facility is poor 1 0 0 The crèche costs too much 2 0 0 I do not use Ripon leisure Centre 7 1 0 I use somewhere else for childcare when I visit the leisure centre 0 0 0 I did not know there was a crèche 13 2 1 Other reason 12 0 0 Q5. Would you start to use the crèche, or use it more often, if you could leave the leisure centre during the 2 hour session? Yes 58 3 No 6 0 1 Maybe 11 3 0 Q6. If the crèche provision continues, what level of subsidy would be reasonable for it to receive? £1,000-£9,999 7 0 0 £10,000-£18,000 23 1 0 More than £18,000 35 5 2 The crèche should operate without a subsidy 4 0 1

Page 322 Page Q7. What age is the child attending the crèche? Under 1 8 0 0 1 years old 10 1 0 Child One 2 years old 6 0 0 3 years old 5 1 0 4 years old 2 0 1 5 years old 3 0 0

Child Two Under 1 2 0 0 1 years old 1 0 1 2 years old 2 1 0 3 years old 5 0 0 4 years old 2 0 0 5 years old 1 0 0 Under 1 1 0 0 Child 1 years old 0 0 0 Three 2 years old 0 1 0 3 years old 0 0 0 4 years old 0 0 0 5 years old 0 0 0 Q8. During the last 6 months, on average, how often have you used the crèche? Less than once a month 5 0 0 One to three times a month 8 1 0 Once a week 10 0 0 Two to three times a week 11 0 0 Four to five times a week 0 0 0

Page 323 Page Q10. What is the maximum cost per child you would be willing to pay for a two-hour crèche session at Ripon Leisure Centre? £1-£5 per session 13 1 0 £6-£10 per session 30 2 1 £11-£15 per session 3 0 0 £16-£20 per session 0 0 0 Q11. If the crèche facility at Ripon Leisure Centre were to close, what would you do? I would rely on friends/family to look after my child/children 4 1 0 I would pay for my child to go to another paid childcare facility/provider 3 0 0 I wouldn't be able to attend any classes/use the facilities 29 2 0 Other 5 0 0

Q13. Disability against: Yes No Prefer not to state Q3. When did you last use Ripon leisure Centre In the last week 0 24 0 In the last month 0 7 0 In the last 6 months 1 13 1 More than 6 months ago 1 11 1 Never 2 16 0 Q4. If you have not used the crèche within the last 6 months, why not? I have no children who need to attend 3 7 1 The timing of the sessions are not right for me 0 9 0 The quality of the crèche facility is poor 0 1 0 The crèche costs too much 0 2 0

Page 324 Page I do not use Ripon Leisure Centre 0 8 0 I use somewhere else for childcare when I visit the leisure centre 0 0 0 I did not know there was a crèche 0 14 1 Other reason 0 9 1 Q5. Would you start to use the crèche, or use it more often, if you could leave the leisure centre during the 2 hour session? Yes, I would use the crèche 1 46 3 No, I wouldn’t use the crèche 2 5 0 Maybe 1 13 0 Q6. If the crèche provision continues, what level of subsidy would be reasonable for it to receive? More than £18,000 per annum 4 31 2 £10,000 to £18,000 per annum 0 18 1 £1,000 to £9,999 per annum 0 7 0 The crèche should operate without subsidy 1 4 0 Q7. What age is the child attending the crèche? Child One Under 1 0 7 0 1 year old 1 5 0 2 years old 0 4 0

3 years old 0 5 1 4 years old 0 1 0 5 years old 0 32 0 Child Two Under 1 0 2 0 1 years old 0 2 0 2 years old 0 2 0 3 years old 0 4 0 4 years old 0 1 0

Page 325 Page 5 years old 0 1 0 Child Three Under 1 0 0 1 1 years old 0 0 0 2 years old 0 0 1 3 years old 0 0 0 4 years 0 0 0 5 years old 0 0 0 Q8. During the last 6 months, on average, how often have you used the crèche? Less than once a month 1 3 0 One to three times a month 1 6 0 Once a week 0 7 0 Two to three times a week 0 6 0 Four to five times a week 0 0 0 Q10. What is the maximum cost per child you would be willing to pay for a two-hour crèche session at Ripon Leisure Centre? £1-£5 per session 1 12 0 £6-£10 per session 1 25 2 £11-£15 per session 0 3 0 £16-£20 per session 0 0 0 Q11. If the crèche facility at Ripon Leisure Centre were to close, what would you do? I would rely on friend/family to look after children 0 4 1 I would pay for child/children to go to another paid child care facility/provider 0 2 0 I wouldn’t be able to attend any classes/use the facilities 2 29 1 Other 0 3 0

Page 326 Page Free text responses

Q4. If you have not used the crèche within the last 6 months, why not?

Want to use the crèche in the future (6 comments) I am expecting a baby and want to use crèche after birth I have just become a grandmother and when my grandson is 4 months old I will be bringing him to crèche 3 days a week as I will be caring for him on mornings this will enable me to keep using the gym I use the leisure centre loads for stay and play and mini gymnastics and plan to use the crèche when my child is a bit older I would like to use the crèche when my baby is a little older (2m) My little one is now in preschool BUT I’m having another baby so will def need to use it again from Jan!!! My son is too young but I planned to rely on this crèche in the future.

Was not aware of the crèche (5 comments) Because I did not know there was a crèche of will certainly attend classes in autumn 18 I had not realised there was a crèche, so hadn't been able to attend classes there. I have used the crèche in the last 6 months however had I not got chatting to another mum in a café in Ripon I would probably have never known about the crèche. Some money should be spent on advertising this site Now that I know about it, I will try and go - I would love to attend yoga or pilates class but can't because of childcare We're new to Ripon - this is poorly advertised as we would use it. 20k is absolutely nothing. Plus, you're apparently binning off the learner pool - so you can't swim without your kids (no crèche) or swim with them!

Previously used when the children were younger (4 comments) Children are now too old, but did when they were all babies around 2-3 times a week My children are much older now and I don’t need it. There isn’t a box for people who used this facility in previous years. This is essential for new mums to have some me time! I needed it. Don’t let others miss out My daughter used to attend the crèche but she has left school and working now I’ve not used crèche for about 3 months as I’ve been pregnant with my second child.

Times aren’t right for the sessions I want to attend (3 comments) I want to do yoga or Pilates but never times right The timing of the sessions aren't right - the yoga/pilates I wanted to attend are on when the crèche is not on. If I could leave site I would use the crèche more The timing of the sessions aren't right. It seems a shame to close a crèche that was in the paper a few years ago for winning an award. That should be an advantage to work on

Do use the crèche (2 comments) Has been used Page 327 Page I use the crèche 3 times a week.

Too expensive (2 comments) The timing of the sessions but mainly the gym membership plus crèche costs to come 5 days a week means it was costing nearly £70 per month. Also you can’t go off site. I would have joined the crèche if gym wasn't too expensive

Use other facilities (1 comment) Being on the cusp of Hambleton district and Harrogate district we are in Harrogate district but travel to Northallerton and you can get 2 hours in the crèche for 2.60 per child and if you are a member it is free

Q9. When using the crèche what classes/facilities are you using in the leisure centre?

Attend the children’s centre playgroup (6 comments) Children’s centre playgroup Currently attend the children’s centre playgroup. have attended classes in the past Just use the crèche for baby group as baby is currently too young to leave Mini gymnastics, children centre stay and play Stay and play group baby group

Mini gymnastics (2 comments) I plan to go back to the gym and use the crèche when my child is a little older. We currently use the sports hall for mini gymnastics Mini gymnastics, children centre stay and play

Using the gym (1 comment) I 'used' the crèche while attending the gym

I did not know about the crèche (1 comment) did not know about crèche

Would use to go off site (1 comment) I would use the leisure centre more if I could go off the site on a morning

Comments regarding survey (1 comment) This in an appalling survey. To complain that 79% of people don’t use the crèche is just pathetic. That’s like arguing to close primary

Page 328 Page school

Q.11 If the crèche facility at Ripon Leisure Centre were to close, what would you do?

I wouldn’t be able to attend any classes/use the facilities (5 comments) I wouldn't be able to attend any classes/use the facilities I would have to cancel my membership. I will be very upset if this facility is to close as I would no longer be able to use the centre. I would pay for my child to go to another paid childcare facility/provider, I wouldn't be able to attend any classes/use the facilities My children are older now therefore this is not relevant to me, however both my children have attended weekly classes at the leisure centre for various things since they were very young

nly crèche available at a leisure centre (2 comments) I ONLY joined the leisure centre because of the crèche. My 2 girls came 4 days a week for 3 years!! It’s the only gym with a crèche facility I would be prepared to travel to Ripon to exercise as there are no gyms with child care facilities closer

I would have to find alternative childcare (2 comments) I would pay for my child to go to another paid childcare facility/provider, I wouldn't be able to attend any classes/use the facilities I would rely on friends/family to look after my child/ren, I would pay for my child to go to another paid childcare facility/provider

I did not know about the crèche (1 comment) As yet not used the facility - did not know about the crèche

Public service comment (1 comment) Although the crèche is not making money, neither do other council services such as the library and I see the crèche as an important public service in the same respect as the library is.

Not suitable due to the timetable (1 comment) I don't currently use it as it is not suitable for the class times I would attend

Page 329 Page

Council’s Response to Public Consultation

August 2018

In June and July 2018, we ran a six week public consultation about the crèche at Ripon Leisure Centre. We wanted to hear your views about this facility with the intention of using all the feedback to help take decisions about the future of the crèche.

The crèche operates Monday to Friday between 9:30 am and 11:30 am. It is professionally supervised and looks after children aged from 12 weeks to 5 years while their parents / carers use the leisure centre’s facilities.

The number of children using the crèche has reduced over recent years, with an average of 3.7 attendees per session during the 12 months to June 2018.

The crèche has been costing the council about £20,000 per year to operate, despite charging for use. Page 330 Page The full consultation results appear above.

The consultation feedback identified some changes which have the potential to reduce the net cost of operation:

You said Action taken The main reason for not using the crèche A budget has been made available for was that you did not know it existed. advertising and promotion. 75% of you would start to use the crèche, or From the start of September 2018, parents use it more often, if you could leave the or carers have been allowed to leave the leisure centre during the 2 hour sessions. leisure centre site during crèche sessions. 59% of users would be prepared to pay From the start of September 2018 fees have between £6 and £10 per crèche session. been increased from £4.20 to £6.30 per session in an effort to reduce the cost of operation.

To allow time to see whether these changes can increase attendances and income, a decision regarding the future of the crèche has been deferred.

Attendance levels will be monitored for four months until the end of December 2018 with a decision regarding the future of crèche to be taken in January 2019.

Appendix B – Ripon Leisure Centre – Harry’s Place Childcare If you need any guidance or assistance completing your Equality Impact Analysis contact Emma McIntosh (Engagement Officer) Equality Impact Analysis [email protected]

The equality impact analysis (EIA) process ensures that we do not *Evidence could include information from consultations; voluntary disadvantage customers and staff who have Protected group feedback; satisfaction and usage data (i.e. complaints, Characteristics (https://www.gov.uk/guidance/equality-act-2010- surveys, and service data); and reviews of previous strategies guidance). In addition to publishing equality information every year the EIA is the council’s main way of ensuring we meet our Statutory YOUR GUIDE TO COMPLETING AN EQUALITY IMPACT Public Sector Equality Duty under the Equality Act 2010. ANALYSIS

It is important to consider the equality impact before designing or Section 1 changing a policy, project or service in any way. You should In Section 1 identify background information to the policy, project or complete an EIA when considering any sized project which will service you are analysing. impact 331 Page people including: Section 2  Developing a service specification In Section 2 highlight any likely impact on equalities as a result of the  Commissioning a service policy, project or service. You must have evidence* to support this.  Providing a new service to residents Impacts can be positive and negative  New staff working procedure  Refreshing and updating a policy Section 3  Removal of service Create an action plan which explains what you will be doing as a  Developing a strategy result of carrying out this analysis

 Changing a service Section 4  As part of consultation process The responsible officer (completing this assessment) must now  Changes to services delivered jointly with other agencies check the analysis and sign Section 4 and have the relevant senior manager also check and approve this analysis, and sign the relevant There are 4 sections to this Equality Impact Analysis. Answer all the part of Section 4. Monitor and review your policy, project or service sections and questions. If you are unable to answer any questions once it has been implemented to ensure any future adverse effects this indicates you need more work so that you can answer the are mitigated. Ensuring the Equality Impact Analysis is kept up to question with confidence and evidence*. date will from a core part of this.

1 SECTION 1

Name of activity/policy/project/decision/function being Closure of Harry’s Place Chidcare (HPC) facility at Ripon Leisure Centre assessed Aims of policy/project/service To consider options for the future operation or closure of the crèche facility at Ripon Leisure Centre Is this new or existing? Review of an existing service Who is responsible for policy or decision, or advising Tim Hepworth, Change Manager – Culture, Tourism and Sport on decision, and also responsible for this equality Michael Constantine, Head of Culture, Tourism and Sport analysis Jeanette Packwood, Sport and Leisure Manager Ben Cutting, Operations Manager – Ripon LC What customer/profile data have you already got? HPC is used by parents and carers of children (aged between 12 weeks and 5 years).

Page 332 Page What does it tell you about who is currently Until 31/8/18, the service was only available to parents/ carers who were using the using/accessing the service? facilities at Ripon Leisure Centre. From 1/9/18 users have also been able to leave the leisure centre site during each 2 hour HPC session.

Attendance data shows that there has been a significant fall in HPC use over the last 3 years. The figure of 11.8 attendances per session shown for 2015/16 is thought to be overstated. The income figures for each year suggest a recording error has taken place.

Ave attendance Annual income per session Apr 13 – Mar 14 5.3 £4,680 Apr 14 – Mar 15 6.9 £5,230 Apr 15 – Mar 16 11.8 £6,210 Apr 16 – Mar 17 4.6 £4,540 Apr 17 – Mar 18 3.7 £3,770 Apr 18 – Dec 18 2.1

2 A six week public consultation regarding the future of HPC ran through June and July 2018. It showed: 91% (87) of consultation repondants were female (anecdotal feedback from centre staff confirms that most users are female). 80% (84) of respondents were aged between 16 and 44 years. 6% (5) of respondents claim to have a disability. 97% (89) of respondents identified as either: White British, White Irish or White Other 14% (13) of respondents stated that they were pregnant or have given birth in the last 26 weeks.

What information/evidence do you have on current The consultation asked: and future service users and what impact could the change make? “If the crèche facility at Ripon Leisure Centre were to close, what would you do?” 76% (41) of respondents stated they wouldn't be able to attend any classes/use the

Page 333 Page facilities.

9% (5) of respondents stated they would rely on friends/family to look after their child/children.

The change in policy to allow users to leave the leisure centre, combined with a price increase on 1/9/18 has seen led to a significant drop in the number of HPC users who remain on-site and use the centre’s facilities.

That reduction has been offset by an increase in users who leave the site. Enquiries by centre staff among a small sample of HPC users failed to identify that any of those going “off-site” were using the opportunity to visit Ripon Spa Baths.

Most used the time to go shopping, meet friends, have coffee or just take a break away from the child.

The table below shows average attendance per session over the last 12 months:

3

Pre-trial period Trial period 1/1/18 to 31/8/18 1/10/18 to 1/2/18 On-site 2.16 (100%) 0.8 (27%) Off-site 0 2.1 (73%) Overall 2.16 3.0

What consultation (either new for the purpose of this A six week public consultation regarding the future of HPC ran through June and July change or carried out previously, but relevant) has 2018. The results of that consultation and the Council’s initial response can be found been carried out to engage service users on the here Page 334 Page change? Previous engagements undertaken by Harrogate Borough Council include: ‘Barriers to particpation’ Sport Development District Panel 2016. Ripon Swimming Pool Consultation 2017. Also North Yorkshire County Council undertook with their Citizens Panel a participation to sport survey and this can be found here. Who are the customers/Stakeholders of the service? The service has traditionally been used by parents and carers of children (aged 12 weeks up to 5 years) who wish to use the facilities at Ripon Leisure Centre. In the last 4 months users have been able to leave the leisure centre site and undertake other activites. List the information and evidence you are using to Output of the consultation exercises identified above. inform this equality analysis. Income data from HPC usage and details of crèche staffing costs. HPC attendance data provided by Ripon Leisure centre. Informantion provided by staff at Ripon LC about what they understand users do if they go “off-site”. Information about the number of registered users of HPC. Summarise the key findings of the information listed The service has very low usage. above It’s core purpose is to facilitate use of the leisure centre by parents and carers. That group is now very small (3.5 users per week)

4

SECTION 2

Do you have enough information to complete section 2? If not then you will need to complete some engagement/research with the service area to know your customer

2.1 Negative Impact? Is the likely effect to Please describe the effect and How will you ensure the negative impact is removed? be negative on any of evidence that supports this* Copy into the action plan the Protected Characteristics listed below (please mark all that apply) Yes No

Page 335 Page Age X Parents/ carers are regarded as the service users (rather than the children who attend). 84 (90%) of consultation respondents were aged between 16 and 44 years and 8 (9%) between 45 and 59 years. Nobody identified as being over 60 years. All users will be equally disadvantaged Disability X The consultation respondents did not identify that anybody with a disability has used the service in the last month. Only two respondents with disability identified as having ever used HPC.

5 3 of the five respondents who identified as disabled do not have children who need to attend. All users will be equally disadvantaged Gender re- X No evidence or suggestion that assignment persons undergoing gender reassignment are using the crèche. All users will be equally disadvantaged Pregnancy X 13 (14%) of consultation Signpost parents/ carers to the NYCC maintained database of

Page 336 Page and respondents stated that they childcare: maternity were pregnant or had given birth https://maps.northyorks.gov.uk/connect/analyst/?mapcfg=Childcare in the last 26 weeks. Two free text comments identified respondents as being pregnant and intending to use HPC after birth of their child, Race X 88 (97%) of consultation respondents identified as “White British” or “White Irish or Other” All users will be equally disadvantaged Religion or X All users will be equally belief disadvantaged Sex X 87 (91%) of consultation Signpost parents/ carers to the NYCC maintained database of respondents were female. childcare: Anecdotal feedback from leisure https://maps.northyorks.gov.uk/connect/analyst/?mapcfg=Childcare centre staff indicated that females form the overwhelming majority of users

6 Sexual X All users will be equally Orientation disadvantaged Marriage/ X All users will be equally Civil disadvantaged partnerships

*Evidence could include information from consultations; voluntary group feedback; satisfaction and usage data (i.e. complaints, surveys, and service data); and reviews of previous strategies.

2.2 How are you going to address any negative impact? Which of the options below best describes how you are going to Answer address the impact described above?

1. No major change - the Equality Impact Analysis demonstrates that Page 337 Page the policy is robust and that the evidence shows no potential for discrimination and that all opportunities to promote equality have been taken. 2. Adjust the policy to remove barriers or better promote equality.

3. Continue the policy despite potential for adverse impact or missed The number of users of this service is relatively small. (25 active, opportunities to promote equality. registered users in December 2018 making an average of 11.5 bookings per week) Users will be will be made aware of the NYCC database of childcare providers in and around Ripon. https://maps.northyorks.gov.uk/connect/analyst/?mapcfg=Childcare

4. Urgent action must be taken if the policy shows actual or potential unlawful discrimination contact Emma McIntosh, Engagement Officer

7

2.3. Positive Impact?

Is the likely effect to Provide examples of good equality practice or How will you promote equality and be positive (please benefits to people with protected characteristics communicate good practice? mark all that apply arising from the implementation of this Yes No service/policy etc Copy into the action plan in Section 3 Age X It is unlikely that the closure of the crèche facility Disability X will have any positive impacts on users of the

Page 338 Page service. Gender re- X However, the estimated £20,000 annual saving assignment will contribute towards the overall efficiency Pregnancy X savings which Culture, Tourism and Sport is and required to achieve. maternity If the crèche closure is progressed, the space Race X that becomes available would become available for other uses and benefit those who participate Religion or X in any new activities. belief Sex X .

Sexual X Orientation Marriage/ X Civil partnerships What measures does and could the policy include to promote equality and foster good N/A relations

8

SECTION 3

ACTION PLAN

The Public Sector Equality Duty is also a continuing duty, requiring attention and a review of decisions post-implementation. Therefore, every Equality Impact Analysis should result in an action plan that sets out the arrangements for reviewing the actual impact of a new policy or changes to an existing policy once it has been implemented.

The action plan could include actions in the following categories:

• Involvement and consultation;

• 339 Page Further data collection and evidence gathering; • mitigating disproportionate or adverse impact; and/or • taking any opportunity to advance equality and foster good relations.

You can produce the action plan by using the template below or by creating one on Covalent. This link provides guidance on producing an action plan in Covalent or through service planning.

Action By when 1 Communicate closure plans and background to registered users and signpost One month prior to closure parents/ carers to the NYCC maintained database of childcare: https://www.northyorks.gov.uk/choosing-childcare

2

3 4 5

9

SECTION 4

Based on the information in section 2, what is the decision of the responsible officer (please select one option below): Tick here No negative equality impact (your analysis shows there is no impact) - sign assessment below [ ] Please summarise your responses here ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. Adverse impact but continue (record objective justification for continuing despite the impact)-complete sections below [ ]

This EIA had been checked and Tim hepworth Date 2/1/19 approved by responsible officer (sign Page 340 Page and print name) This EIA has been checked and Date approved by senior manager (sign and print name)

(1) Attach your completed Equality Impact Analysis to your decision/recommendation report (2) Please send the completed Equality Impact Analysis to Emma McIntosh, Engagement Officer, [email protected] (3) Upload the completed Equality Impact Analysis to the relevant service improvement action on covalent

Date of Equality Impact Analysis Review: …………………………………………………. Even after your activity/policy/project/decision/function has been implemented; it is recommended that analysis is undertaken every three years, and that this analysis is updated at any significant points in between. The purpose of any update is that the actual effects will only be known after the implementation of your policy, project or service. Additionally, area demographics could change, leading to different needs, alternative provision can become available, or new options to reduce an adverse effect could become apparent.

10

Page 341 Page

11 This page is intentionally left blank By virtue of paragraph(s) 2, 4 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

Document is Restricted

Page 343 This page is intentionally left blank Appendix D Ripon Leisure Centre – Harry’s Place Childcare

Harry’s Place Childcare on/off site usage 4th June 2018 to 8th March 2019

Onsite Offsite Split Total Ave per session 02/04/2018 13 - - 13 3.25 4 days 09/04/2018 9 - - 9 1.8 16/04/2018 7 - - 7 3.5 2 days 23/04/2018 9 - - 9 1.8 30/04/2018 9 - - 9 1.8 07/05/2018 6 - - 6 1.5 4 days 14/05/2018 9 - - 9 1.8 21/05/2018 11 - - 11 2.2 28/05/2018 8 - - 8 2 4 days 04/06/2018 12 - - 12 2.4 11/06/2018 15 - - 15 3 18/06/2018 10 - - 10 2 25/06/2018 11 - - 11 2.2 02/07/2018 13 - - 13 2.6 09/07/2018 9 - - 9 1.8 16/07/2018 8 - - 8 1.6 23/07/2018 4 - - 4 0.8 30/07/2018 6 - - 6 1.2 06/08/2018 6 - - 6 1.2 13/08/2018 6 - - 6 1.2 20/08/2018 7 - - 7 1.4 27/08/2018 4 - - 4 1 4 days 03/09/2018 4 4 8 1.6 10/09/2018 2 4 6 1.2 17/09/2018 4 4 1 9 1.8 24/09/2018 3 6 9 1.8 01/10/2018 6 4 10 2 08/10/2018 4 5 9 1.8 15/10/2018 4 5 9 1.8 22/10/2018 8 4 1 13 2.6 29/10/2018 4 12 16 3.2 05/11/2018 2 5 7 1.4 12/11/2018 3 11 14 2.8 19/11/2018 4 12 16 3.2 26/11/2018 2 11 1 14 2.8 03/12/2018 3 20 23 4.6 10/12/2018 3 6 9 1.8 17/12/2018 2 13 15 3 24/12/2018 Closed 31/12/2018 2 7 1 10 3.3 3 days 07/01/2019 5 18 23 4.6

Page 347

14/01/2019 3 9 12 2.4 21/01/2019 6 19 25 5 28/01/2019 4 17 21 4.2 04/02/2019 2 16 18 3.6 11/02/2019 5 15 20 4 18/02/2019 3 21 24 4.8 25/02/2019 3 22 25 5 04/03/2019 3 16 1 20 4

Page 348 By virtue of paragraph(s) 2, 4 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

Document is Restricted

Page 349 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 13 By virtue of paragraph(s) 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

Document is Restricted

Page 381 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 14 By virtue of paragraph(s) 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

Document is Restricted

Page 393 This page is intentionally left blank By virtue of paragraph(s) 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

Document is Restricted

Page 399 This page is intentionally left blank By virtue of paragraph(s) 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

Document is Restricted

Page 401 This page is intentionally left blank By virtue of paragraph(s) 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

Document is Restricted

Page 419 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 15 By virtue of paragraph(s) 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

Document is Restricted

Page 425 This page is intentionally left blank By virtue of paragraph(s) 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

Document is Restricted

Page 437 This page is intentionally left blank By virtue of paragraph(s) 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

Document is Restricted

Page 441 This page is intentionally left blank