FOI Request - Review of 101003831462 Real Estate and Accommodation for Elected Members

Request 101003846689

Review of 101003831462 Real Estate and Accommodation for Elected Members

I am writing to request an Internal Review of the Council’s response to my FOI request titled “Real Estate and Accommodation for Elected Members” (Ref: 101003831462), submitted on 1 August 2025.
Please note:
This request for review does not expand or alter the original scope.
It is submitted under Section 20 of FOISA and seeks a reconsideration of how the original request was interpreted and fulfilled.

Grounds for Review

1. Failure to Provide Financial Cost Attribution
The Council has confirmed that seven councillor offices, a Members’ Lounge, and a Members’ Support Office (totalling approximately 175?m²) are allocated exclusively to elected member use. However, the response applies Section 17 (information not held) in relation to any financial cost, internal charge, rental estimate, or other valuation for these areas.

This is not a reasonable application of Section 17. Public bodies are not required to create new data under FOISA, but are expected to:
• Provide best estimates where exact figures are unavailable;
• Use internal assumptions or cost allocation models where applied in estate management, asset reporting, or budget planning.
Specifically:
• The Council must hold or use internal property valuations, floor area metrics, or cost models for statutory functions (e.g. non-domestic rates valuation, asset accounting under CIPFA/LASAAC rules).
• A defined, enclosed space of 175?m² should be costable using standard per-square-metre operating costs, recharge rates, or benchmarking figures.
The refusal to estimate or attribute any cost whatsoever to this known and council-maintained space — in use by a small group of elected members — undermines both the spirit and the purpose of FOISA. As other councils have demonstrated, this type of cost attribution is possible and routinely undertaken in public estate management.

2. Inadequate Usage and Alternative Use Information
While I appreciate the reference to the Council’s online meeting diary, this does not respond to the full scope of the original request, which asked about:
• The frequency or volume of usage of councillor-designated spaces (e.g. offices, lounges);
• Any internal or external alternative usage of these spaces.
The response asserts that no logs are held, but does not clarify:
• Whether room bookings or swipe access logs exist (even if not collated);
• Whether officers or external users make informal use of those rooms (and if so, how this is tracked or permitted);
• Whether the shared Chamber or Committee Room usage is ever recorded by purpose or group.
I respectfully request that the Council reconsider whether any partial records, booking systems, or monitoring practices exist that could fulfil this part of the request more fully.

Remedy Sought
I request that the Council:
• Reassess whether internal estimates or recharge models can be applied to the known 175?m² of elected member space;
• Provide any available assumptions, unit cost rates, or benchmark figures held or used by Property, Finance or Estates teams to calculate such costs;
• Confirm whether any booking, swipe, or usage logs exist for the relevant rooms, or whether informal usage by officers or others is ever monitored;
• If continuing to rely on Section 17, explain the specific basis for that conclusion — including why such cost attribution is not held or used for budgetary, operational, or estates purposes.