Freedom of Information Request Refused by Sunderland

Council as is normal if you ask for information about the

land sale on Marine Walk Roker to Beachbar Leisure Ltd

This is a statement from the council leader in the Sunderland

Echo on 15th May 2014 This land was sold in 2007 for 25,000 and
there is independent confirmation the council received above-
market value for council tax payers from the sale.

FOI Request.
Please provide the amount Sunderland Council has spent denying
the public access to the information the council leader says is
now available. Bearing in mind the council has quoted (that the
council estimates it has now spent more than 200 hours of officer
time responding to this line of correspondence, equivalent, if
billed for at commercial rates, to a cost to the taxpayer of over
16,000.)
On the 20th January 2014 Heather Fagan asked Please provide
documents relating to the sale of Title Number TY46688 at Roker
Sea Front by Sunderland City Council to Beachbar Leisure
Limited The councils reply stated that it no longer holds
records pre-dating the agreement to sell, given the length of
time elapsed since the sale was first agreed.
There seems to be some confusion within the council as to
whether it holds the information requested or not.
Please provide the independent confirmation the council
received above-market value for council tax payers from the sale,
which the council leader now says they hold.
The council records show Proposed Sale of Freehold
Reversionary Interest in Ford and Hylton Club, Poole Road,
Pennywell 2008. Lynn Hunt of District Audit stated that as they
did not know if the Ford and Hylton Social Club was an isolated
case, they had extended a sample to a dozen leases and had pulled
together initial findings. It was also planned to so some work on
the strategic approach to asset management across the Council.
Can you pleases advise was the the sale of this land

a consideration of audit commissions work on asset management

across the Council.
Yours sincerely, Len Lowther

From: Sunderland City Council30 May 2014

I have reviewed the further correspondence and in the context of
past correspondence and your further recent contacts with this
authority and others, I have concluded that this request, and the
supplementary questions you have raised above should also be
refused as vexatious.

In summary, you appear to be exploring every avenue, and engaging
with others, in opposition to a development to which the planning
record shows you raised no objection at the appropriate stage of
the planning process.

Your comments above do not accurately reflect, or take account
of, the number of times you have contacted the council and a
number of other public authorities by letter and other email.
This, in addition to the requests you have made on this site,
continues to make disproportionate demands on the limited
resources available. I doubt you will agree, but hope you can
appreciate that others would consider that staff time and
resources will be better spent on providing services to people
who use those services more responsibly.

Reply to Sunderland City Council 1st June 2014

Both directors of Fitz Architects came to our cafe and asked if
we would have any objections to their proposed development. We
raised one issue, which was the elevated seating area that
destroyed any privacy we might have had. Their response was to
ask if this was the only objection to which we replied that's

correct. We as with most people are keen to see the area

improved. A promise was given by Fitz Architects to reduce the
size of the seating area and reduce its height down to pavement
level if we did not object.

Being a trusting sole or you might think stupid I took their word
as their bond. That's why we did not initially object. I was
subsequently informed that the plans were being rubber-stamped
because of a friendship between council leader Paul Watson and
Ian Robert Fitzakerly the architects father.

On initial inspection of the plans it was obvious we had been
lied to. On further inspection I discovered that this development
was being rubber stamped by Sunderland Council. Previous planning
applications for the site had been subject to conditions imposed
by Sunderland Council, which were not now being considered
relevant. Some of the conditions which were previously considered
necessary were car parking facilities for the owner / user of the
development.

Page one of the delegated decision report states; (first floor
offices with associated parking) but then on page 11 the only 5
car parking spaces available are designated to the 5 residential
units? The 5 car parking spaces cannot be designated to the first
floor office use on page 1 then on page11 the same 5 car parking
spaces designated to the residential units.

The delegated decision report lies and hides the real intended
use of the development. Link http://www.scribd.com/doc/183082540
On page 14 of the delegated decision report the true use of the
first floor is slipped into the report. (NOTWITHSTANDING the
submitted plans, no more than 240 square metres of the available
450 square metres of internal floor space at first floor level
shall be used for the purposes of use class B1 office use.)

Sunderland Council are intentionally allowing a development to be
built that is describe as having five first floor residential
units but know this is not the intended use. Sunderland Council
is complicit in approving 240sq. meters of first floor office use
but describing the area as residential. The conspiracy between
Sunderland Council and Fitz Architects is obvious and
intentionally discriminating against disabled people by not
providing a lift to the 240sq meters first floor office use.

Sunderland Council has wasted ratepayers money lying and
refusing to provide information supposedly readily available. The

council leader Paul Watson stated in the Sunderland Echo there is

independent proof the land on Marine Walk was sold legally, to a
company councilor Scanlan was involved with, around the same
period as the Ford and Hylton enquiry. If this evidence was
available why was it not simply provided to prevent wasting
taxpayers money. Sunderland Council is corrupt and I intend to
continue my effort to expose that fact.

Regards Len Lowther