Jump to content

Freedom of Information?


SE Barlow

Featured Posts

3 minutes ago, Stilllearning said:

Who are “they” and what is it about?

You have to open the link to find out... It's CRT. It's about the tender for the Dry Dock at Dutton. Presumably the name of the successful tenderer is somewhere in the public domain?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"They" collectively are Canal & River Trust.

"They" specifically are 'the stakeholders' (whatever that means) who decided the upon successful applicant for the lease on the Dutton Dry Dock at Preston Brook at the top of the Trent & Mersey Canal.

"It" is about fairness and transparency in public life.

For the avoidance of doubt, I was among the unsuccessful applicants.  By all means call "it" sour grapes if you wish. However, given that I invested £500 of my own money in preparing my own tender I should like to be reassured that my efforts were not futile from the outset.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Richard10002 said:

You have to open the link to find out... It's CRT. It's about the tender for the Dry Dock at Dutton. Presumably the name of the successful tenderer is somewhere in the public domain?

Sadly not.  Ask the towpath telegraph.  I have no quarrel with the successful applicant and genuinely wish them luck in this endeavour.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Heartland said:

Dutton Dock has important heritage aspects. Is known if any changes are planned ?

Completely agree.  The intentions of the new tenant are unknown to me, however, knowing them somewhat, I would assume they are sensitive to the historic nature of the site.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 27/01/2020 at 12:58, SE Barlow said:

CRT have the option to behave as a private sector organisation to purchase goods and services or access public procurement systems providing they follow European procurement rules and comply with Public Contract Regulations 2015.  This link does not establish whether the procurement was conducted in accordance with the PCR or not.  Based on CRT's response I suspect it wasn't and therefore their response is valid.  If it was tendered under PCR then there should be more transparency than they are currently offering.  Has anyone actually seen the tender documents?  Based on data in the Official Journal of the European Union, CRT has issued just a handful of public tenders in the last few years and they all relate to civil works that relate to maintenance of the network, Dutton Dry Dock is not one of them.  There is however reference to Finsley Gate Wharf in Burnley.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, GRLMK38 said:

CRT have the option to behave as a private sector organisation to purchase goods and services or access public procurement systems providing they follow European procurement rules and comply with Public Contract Regulations 2015.  This link does not establish whether the procurement was conducted in accordance with the PCR or not.  Based on CRT's response I suspect it wasn't and therefore their response is valid.  If it was tendered under PCR then there should be more transparency than they are currently offering.  Has anyone actually seen the tender documents?  Based on data in the Official Journal of the European Union, CRT has issued just a handful of public tenders in the last few years and they all relate to civil works that relate to maintenance of the network, Dutton Dry Dock is not one of them.  There is however reference to Finsley Gate Wharf in Burnley.

Judge for yourselves ... (see attached)

 

Among Ms Mobberley's response, the line I take greatest issue with is this: "The information you have requested does not relate to the operation or maintenance of our waterways".  The maintenance of dry docks and wharfage are clearly essential to the operation of waterways.

Screenshot 2020-01-28 at 14.25.04.png

Screenshot 2020-01-28 at 14.25.19.png

Screenshot 2020-01-28 at 14.25.32.png

Screenshot 2020-01-28 at 14.25.52.png

Screenshot 2020-01-28 at 14.26.05.png

Screenshot 2020-01-28 at 14.26.18.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SE Barlow said:

The maintenance of dry docks and wharfage are clearly essential to the operation of waterways.

I would have thought that most of them are private, so I am not sure they count as essential to operation of the waterways.  Helpul yes, but not essential.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, TheBiscuits said:

I would have thought that most of them are private, so I am not sure they count as essential to operation of the waterways.  Helpul yes, but not essential.

True but the majority pay curtilage to CRT in order to trade.  Let's see how the 35,000 [licence fee paying] boat owners get on without the existence of docking facilities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, SE Barlow said:

True but the majority pay curtilage to CRT in order to trade.  Let's see how the 35,000 [licence fee paying] boat owners get on without the existence of docking facilities.

 

I'm not sure how you can pay 'curtilage' to C&RT as curtilage is the amount of land surrounding a building (ie in domestic terms the size of the front / back side gardens all added together. A curtilage / boundary should be readily defined.

 

Is the dock just not on a 'lease' basis with possibly an access agreement and supplementary charge.

 

Edit to add the official definition :

 

Curtilage is an important legal concept when it comes to property and land. ... Curtilage is a way of legally defining a boundary wherein a homeowner or resident can expect reasonable levels of privacy. It also affects legal matters like trespassing, burglary, search and seizure, and land use planning.

Edited by Alan de Enfield
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, SE Barlow said:

Judge for yourselves ... (see attached)

 

Among Ms Mobberley's response, the line I take greatest issue with is this: "The information you have requested does not relate to the operation or maintenance of our waterways".  The maintenance of dry docks and wharfage are clearly essential to the operation of waterways.

 

It looks like a property lease with special conditions attached to the terms and conditions to me.  I appreciate you lost £500 in the process, which is unfortunate, but that may turn out to be a blessing in disguise when you consider all of the obligations that you would have been contractually mandated to deliver on a Grade II listed building.  For example, you would have been responsible for obtaining planning consent (at your cost).  Signing a lease with no guarantee of planning is high risk in my opinion.   The eventual rewards would have to be very good to make that a risk worth taking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, GRLMK38 said:

It looks like a property lease with special conditions attached to the terms and conditions to me.  I appreciate you lost £500 in the process, which is unfortunate, but that may turn out to be a blessing in disguise when you consider all of the obligations that you would have been contractually mandated to deliver on a Grade II listed building.  For example, you would have been responsible for obtaining planning consent (at your cost).  Signing a lease with no guarantee of planning is high risk in my opinion.   The eventual rewards would have to be very good to make that a risk worth taking.

Thanks for this well-reasoned thought, which has been articulated privately by others.  However, I'm over the disappointment and am now into 'justice'!  I detest being treated like a simpleton by the powers-that-be whose officers all too frequently imagine that a pat on the head with a hollow platitude will placate the masses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

I'm not sure how you can pay 'curtilage' to C&RT as curtilage is the amount of land surrounding a building (ie in domestic terms the size of the front / back side gardens all added together. A curtilage / boundary should be readily defined.

 

Is the dock just not on a 'lease' basis with possibly an access agreement and supplementary charge.

 

Edit to add the official definition :

 

Curtilage is an important legal concept when it comes to property and land. ... Curtilage is a way of legally defining a boundary wherein a homeowner or resident can expect reasonable levels of privacy. It also affects legal matters like trespassing, burglary, search and seizure, and land use planning.

Apologies.  Wrong vocab'. My bad.  My understanding is that many waterside businesses who access the water from their properties pay a 'ground rent' to CRT for the privilege (often levied as a substantial slice of turnover).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, SE Barlow said:

Apologies.  Wrong vocab'. My bad.  My understanding is that many waterside businesses who access the water from their properties pay a 'ground rent' to CRT for the privilege (often levied as a substantial slice of turnover).

Yes - that'll be the access agreement I mentioned, and is commonly 9% of turnover.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I assume CRT held an open tender, and those who expressed interest would have been given more details of the requirements of the tender process, the decision-making criteria, draft lease agreement etc. Inevitably, all but one of those who submitted tenders will be disappointed (and out of pocket). But you have to accept that possibility if you choose to submit a bid. 

In my experience if you are unsuccessful and ask for feedback you will usually get some, but it is not always very helpful. 

Beyond that, I can't see any point in chasing this through the freedom of information route. Its simply not a FOI matter. And doing so is likely to mark the complainant out as one of the awkward squad, which may not be helpful when the next tender opportunity comes along.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 27/01/2020 at 12:58, SE Barlow said:

I feel you need some practical help rather than a discussion.

 

Quote

I can confirm that while the Trust holds the information you have requested, its obligations under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 are limited in scope to information relating to statutory functions which were transferred to it from British Waterways under the British Waterways Board (Transfer of Functions) Order under 2012 – these functions relate to the operation and licensing of vessels on our inland waterway network.

Whilst it is true they hold the information, the rest is absolute bullshit.

It is very wrong to suggest that functions transferred just relate to 'the operation and licensing of vessels on our inland waterway network'.

The British Waterways Board (Transfer of Functions) Order 2012 Section 3 defines functions transferred as harbour authority, navigation authority and statutory undertaker - rather more than CRT will admit to.

You may also wish to object to a junior member of staff carrying out your review particularly as a superior has accused him of altering responses in the past.


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 29/01/2020 at 20:07, David Mack said:

I assume CRT held an open tender, and those who expressed interest would have been given more details of the requirements of the tender process, the decision-making criteria, draft lease agreement etc. Inevitably, all but one of those who submitted tenders will be disappointed (and out of pocket). But you have to accept that possibility if you choose to submit a bid. 

In my experience if you are unsuccessful and ask for feedback you will usually get some, but it is not always very helpful. 

Beyond that, I can't see any point in chasing this through the freedom of information route. Its simply not a FOI matter. And doing so is likely to mark the complainant out as one of the awkward squad, which may not be helpful when the next tender opportunity comes along.

David, if by 'awkward squad' you mean someone that cares enough about our shared heritage to hold responsible public servants to account then fine, guilty as charged.

On 29/01/2020 at 23:36, Allan(nb Albert) said:

I feel you need some practical help rather than a discussion.

 

Whilst it is true they hold the information, the rest is absolute bullshit.

It is very wrong to suggest that functions transferred just relate to 'the operation and licensing of vessels on our inland waterway network'.

The British Waterways Board (Transfer of Functions) Order 2012 Section 3 defines functions transferred as harbour authority, navigation authority and statutory undertaker - rather more than CRT will admit to.

You may also wish to object to a junior member of staff carrying out your review particularly as a superior has accused him of altering responses in the past.


 

Allan, this is amazing and truly useful. Thank you for getting intellectually involved.

On 29/01/2020 at 21:45, TheBiscuits said:

Or at least one with tender feelings ...

 

.

.

.

 

 

 

I'll get my coat!

? (bravo)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to say that in any business you will incur costs....and sometimes you will not win tenders or bids...and sometimes the winning bid will have lifted ideas from your bid because they are mates etc with the customer.....its just how it is....Ive had it happen to my company and Ive worked for clients who have done it to others. Its annoying but its how life is...just cost your plans appropriately and hope the ones you win cover the ones you lose!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 31/01/2020 at 10:18, SE Barlow said:

David, if by 'awkward squad' you mean someone that cares enough about our shared heritage to hold responsible public servants to account then fine, guilty as charged.

 

No I mean someone who makes life difficult for others he deals with, and consequently finds that they are less likely to cut him some slack when it would help him. But you knew that.

As far as I can see, CRT are well aware of the heritage issues involved, and are rightly looking to the incoming tenant to address a backlog in maintenance, in accordance with listed building requirements, and they are prepared to accept a temporary rent reduction to reflect the costs involved. You have already said that you think the new occupant is sympathetic to the historic nature of the site, so what's the problem?

And CRT staff are not public servants, although I'm not sure what difference that makes.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.