Corporate Management Our ref: MGLA140414-3967 Date: 30 June 2014 Dear Mr Johnson Environment Information Regulations: Mount Pleasant Thank you for your request for information which the Greater London Authority (GLA) received on 12 April 2014. Please accept my apologies for the delay in responding. You asked for: Please release all correspondence, electronic or otherwise, between the Mayor of London, the Mayor of London's office, and Royal Mail over the Mount Pleasant site. Please also release any details of meetings (time and date for eg) between the Mayor of London, his representatives, and the Royal Mail over the Mount Pleasant site. Please find attached some of the information you have requested. Some of the information you requested is being withheld from disclosure under the Environment Information Regulations. The attached annex sets out the exceptions to disclose in full. The meetings which have taken place are listed below. Date Title/Subject Attendees Location/sustenance 12 September 2012 12:00-13:30 Mount Pleasant preplanning application Samantha Wells, GLA (case officer) Colin Wilson, GLA (senior manager) Ruth Beard, DP9 (planning agent) Oliver Sheppard, DP9 (planning agent) Eugene Doyle – RMG (applicant) Stewart Kain – M3 (applicant’s property consultant) Richard Cowan – M3 (property consultant) City Hall, Room 3.6W Pre-application meeting requested by applicant to discuss design principles (Meeting paid for by applicant in accordance with GLA protocol) 06 December 2012 1pm to 2pm and 2.30pm to 4.30pm Mount Pleasant preplanning application follow up meeting requested by applicant to discuss design evolution and energy matters (Meeting paid for by applicant in accordance with GLA protocol) Simon Allford – AHMM (lead architect) Ceri Davies – AHMM (architect) Paul Eaton – Allies and Morrison architect GLA Samantha Wells, Colin Wilson Keith Routledge, Energy Team City Hall, Room 4.7W Applicant Eugene Doyle – RMG Ruth Beard - DP9 Oliver Sheppard - DP9 Richard Cowan - M3 Matthew Jones – AHMM Julie Godefroy - Hoare Lea (energy) Mark Ryder/Mark Hardy Hoare Lea (sustainability) Ceri Davies – AHMM Paul Eaton - Allies and Morrison Islington Council Sarah Ricketts (case officer) Emma Bushell (energy) Camden Council Richard McEllistrum (case officer) Kevin Fisher (energy) 15 May 2013 13:00-14:30 Mayor’s Regular Planning Meeting The Mayor and Deputy Mayor received a preplanning application presentation for the London Dock scheme (PDU/3063) and Mount Pleasant scheme (PDU/3032). Boris Johnson, Mayor Ed Lister, Deputy Mayor Samantha Wells, Case Officer Colin Wilson, Senior Manager Justin Carr, GLA manager Stewart Murray, Assistant Director GLA Patricia Charleton, TfL TfL lawyer Oliver Sheppard - DP9 Richard Cowan/Stewart Kain M3 Eugene Doyle – RMG Paul Eaton - Allies and Morrison (architect), Ceri Davies (AHMM) Sarah Ricketts (LBI case officer) Geraldine Knipe (LBI manager) Richard McEllistrum (LBC case officer) City Hall, Committee Room 1 Other planning staff from GLA in audience 15 August 2013 17:00-17:30 Mount Pleasant meeting General discussion with Samantha Wells, GLA Stewart Murray, GLA Stewart Kain, M3 Oliver Sheppard, DP9 City Hall, Room 3.4.W applicant about strategic issues relating to application, in particular affordable housing and progress of application 18 November 2013 13:30-14:30 Mount Pleasant Meeting between Boroughs, applicant and GLA about progress with application, particularly in relation to borough’s outstanding concerns in relation to affordable housing 04 December 2013 11:00-12:00 Mount Pleasant meeting 07 January 2014 12:00-13:00 To discuss progress made since 18 November meeting in relation to affordable housing Mt Pleasant - meeting with DP9 06 February 2014 09:30 – 13:00 07 April 2014 12:00 – 14:00 09 April 2014 15:00 – 17:00 To discuss delays in committee reporting by boroughs and process of Mayoral call-in Mt Pleasant meeting Between council, GLA case officer, and applicant’s representatives to discuss call-in process and outstanding concerns of the boroughs Mt Pleasant meeting Meeting with applicant to discuss call-in process in relation to planning performance agreement, affordable housing review and issues arising from borough reporting Mount Pleasant call-in Meeting to discuss process, outstanding Samantha Wells, GLA Colin Wilson Frances. Wheat, Camden (Head of Planning) Ed Watson, Camden (Assistant Director) Victoria Geoghegan, Islington (Head of Planning Karen Sullivan, Islington (Service Director) Oliver Sheppard, DP9 Eugene Doyle, RMG Martin Gafsen, RMG Stewart Kain, M3 Samantha Wells, GLA Justin Carr, GLA Oliver Sheppard, Dp9 Stewart Kain, M3 GLA, City Hall Room 1.1E Justin Carr Colin Wilson Samantha Wells, Oliver Sheppard, Dp9 Hugh Sowerby, Dp9 City Hall, Room 4.7W Samantha Wells, GLA Richard McEllustram, Camden Sarah Ricketts, Islington Victoria Geoghegan, Islington Oliver Sheppard, DP9 Hugh Sowerby, DP9 Stewart Kain, M3 Islington Offices Samantha Wells, GLA Colin Wilson, GLA Oliver Sheppard, Dp9 Hugh Sowerby, Dp9 Stewart Kain, M3 City Hall, Room 4.7W Samantha Wells, GLA Justin Carr Oliver Sheppard - DP9 Hugh Sowerby- DP9 City Hall, Room CR9 City Hall, Room 6.0W issues, affordable housing, s106 draft: actions, next steps; conditions. Sarah Ricketts, LBI Ciara Power, LBI Richard McEllistrum, LBC If you have any further queries relating to this request then please get in touch. Yours sincerely, Paul Robinson Information Governance Officer If you are unhappy with the way the GLA has handled your request, you may complain using the complaints procedure, available at: http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor-assembly/gla/governing-organisation/freedominformation Annex EIR exception Regulation 12 (5) (e) Commercial Confidentiality 12.—(5) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(a), a public authority may refuse to disclose information to the extent that its disclosure would adversely affect— (e) the confidentiality of commercial or industrial information where such confidentiality is provided by law to protect a legitimate economic interest How the exemption applies to this information • Is the information commercial or industrial in nature? The GLA considers that the information withheld from disclosure relates to the commercial activities of RMG because it relates to the pursuit of a planning application which will facilitate the construction and sale or rent of a development. The withheld information contains assumptions regarding sales / rental prices including investment information and yield assumptions as well as affordable housing valuations, land value, construction costs, enabling work costs and professional fees which were submitted to the GLA in support of the planning preapplication process. The GLA therefore considers that this information is clearly commercial in nature. • Is the information subject to confidentiality provided by law? The GLA‘s view is that the withheld information is subject to a duty of confidence provided by law. Detailed commercially sensitive information has been provided to the GLA with a strict understanding that the information is and would remain confidential. Indeed, the information submitted to the GLA is supported by confidentiality markings. RMG’s viability assessment was clearly marked as confidential and commercially sensitive. The information is neither otherwise accessible nor trivial in nature as it relates to a significant local development therefore the information has the necessary quality of confidence. Communications sent to the GLA which supported the pre-application process include comments and attachments were shared in circumstances which import an obligation of confidence. • Is the confidentiality provided to protect a legitimate interest? Legitimate economic interests include retaining / improving the market position of RMG and ensuring competitors do not gain access to commercially valuable information and protecting bargaining positions. • Would the confidentiality be adversely affected by disclosure? o o o o o o Disclosure of the information subject to this exception would provide RMG’s competitors with an advantage in bidding for the site in question and impact upon the process of negotiations for the sale of the site. Any information regarding affordable housing values will impact on the negotiations in relation to the sale of the residential units to a registered provider or other party. Knowledge of the land value methodology employed by RMG would compromise commercial negotiations on a sale of the site. The construction costs used to calculate RMG’s residual land values are extremely commercially sensitive and their disclosure would impact on RMG’s future commercial negotiations. Cost assumptions regarding enabling works form part of the project and their disclosure would impact upon RMG’s negotiations regarding cost of the enabling works to be carried out by contractors. Disclosure of Professional fees would put RMG at a disadvantage in future negotiations. Public interest test In favour of disclosure; • • • Regulation 12(2) of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 require authorities to exercise a presumption to disclose There is a general public interest in openness, transparency and accountability of public authorities. Disclosure of some of the commercially sensitive material may allow for greater public participation local planning debates and ensuring that local authorities are achieving best value for money and achieving satisfactory affordable housing targets. In favour of non-disclosure; • • • • It is not in the public interest to release this information at this time as it relates to current and commercially sensitive information The information which is subject to this exception includes detailed information of a commercial nature that is unique to the planning application process and the applicants’ method of business in a competitive environment. The information therefore is not trivial in nature and would have an adverse effect on the applicants' commercial interests if disclosed which is not in the public interest. Disclosure could enable third parties to gain access to strategic commercial and business information providing an unfair advantage. The requested information is not readily accessible in the public domain, nor has it been made available on any public register. This supports the use of this exception in that the information is confidential in nature.