Follow up from EIR196501-457428
(i) Obviously nearly a year has passed without publication of this Parking Standards document and
(ii) the largest development in Maidenhead's history (1500 homes on the Golf Course) is about to be brought before the planning panel at the Extraordinary Meeting on 14th January 2025 .
https://rbwm.moderngov.co.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=632&MId=9908
(iii) The BLP Inspector was informed by RBWM in 2020 that it would update the parking standards, and her final report stated that the document must be promptly updated in order to render the local plan sound and in compliance with national standards. Her final report (ID-34) states at paragraphs 283 and 284:
https://www.rbwm.gov.uk/planning-and-building-control/planning-policy/development-plan/draft-borough-local-plan/examination-local-plan/inspectors-documents
"However, the 2004 Strategy sets maximum standards and, while MM46 requires some flexibility in their application, their use would be contrary to the Plan’s own intention to move to minimum standards. It would also be contrary to the Government’s Statement in March 2015 that the imposition of maximum parking standards led to blocked and congested streets and pavement parking11; and that the market is best placed to decide if additional spaces should be provided. I have therefore amended the wording of the modification to clarify that while the 2004 Strategy can be used as a guide to the appropriate level of parking, it should not be used to set a maximum level."
(iv) There is a clear problem in approving the bulk of BLP planning applications on the largest allocations without ever finalising and consulting on the key planning policies that support a sound BLP. There is little purpose in approving 1500 houses and LATER discovering that the approval was contrary to the new updated policy (and moreover a policy that is as yet not compliant with 2015 government guidance.)
Consequently, it is clearly in the public interest to understand the council's position in a (long over-due) document that is critical to the soundness of the largest single planning decision in recent memory, and in its current form was identified several years ago as being inconsistent with national standards dating back to 2015.
The "safe space" argument for witholding a draft may have applied in 2022 shortly after the BLP was adopted, and perhaps even 2023, but we are now approaching the third anniversary of the BLP and it would undermine the concept of "safe spaces" for them to be exploited to withhold policy documents on an indefinite basis where their timely updating is a legal requirement.
https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/foi/freedom-of-information-and-environmental-information-regulations/regulation-124d-eir/
See Paul Thornton vs Information Commissioner (EA/2017/0266, 13 April 2018) and the guidance that:
"The exception may not apply if there is a legal requirement to allow the public to view draft documents. This may apply to information such as Environmental Impact Assessments. At the least, a legal requirement to allow the public to review draft documents will be an important factor to bear in mind when carrying out the public interest test."
It is clear that the spirit of this guidance captures the public interest in seeing compliance with the 2015 governement guidelines, and the Inspector's statement that the old document is unsound and "ineffective" in law. So the public interest lies clearly in disclosure under the act, not least given the greater presumption in favour of disclosure under EIR compared to the (incorrectly) identified FOI regime previosuly used to unlawfully withhold my information request. Environmental information must be provided upon request in general.
1. Could you therefore please promptly provide me the current version of the updated Parking Standards 2004 document.