FOI - Compressor House [Jul 2026]

I write to request recorded information under Freedom of Information Act 2000, s 1 and, in the alternative, the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 where any part of the requested material is considered environmental information. 

This request concerns the statement in section 3.7 of the Compressor House Briefing in support of MD3317 dated 13 December 2024. 

“It is reported (publicly available information) that RLG owed significant monies (totalling nearly £5million) to the authority...

” For the period **1 September 2024 to 31 January 2025**, please provide the following recorded information. 

1. Source of the “publicly available information” 

Please provide all records identifying the “publicly available information” relied upon for the statement that Really Local Group (“RLG”) owed “nearly £5 million” to the London Borough of Southwark, including: 

1. the exact document, webpage, report, filing, note, or other source relied upon; 

2. the title, date, author, and URL or location of each such source; 

3. any internal email, note, or annotation explaining how the “nearly £5 million” figure was derived . 

2. First internal appearance of the figure Please provide: 

1. the **earliest held recorded information** in which the figure “£5 million”, “5 million”, “£5m”, or “nearly £5 million” appears in relation to RLG, Preston Benson, Peckham Levels, or Southwark debt; 

2. the date of that record; 

3. the sender, recipients, and copied recipients; 

4. the names of any attachments transmitted with it.

 3. Drafting and approval of the Royal Docks wording Please provide all recorded information showing: 

1. who drafted the wording quoted above; 

2. who reviewed or approved it; 

3. any drafts showing edits to the “Debt – LB Southwark” section; 

4. any comments, track changes, or approval emails concerning that passage. 

4. Verification, challenge, revision, or correction 

Please provide all records that: 

1. verify or attempt to verify the “nearly £5 million” figure; 

2. question, dispute, or challenge that figure; 

3. revise, correct, qualify, or retract that figure; 

4. distinguish between an alleged debt, arrears, liabilities, insolvency risk, or any suggestion of “missing money”. 

5. Communications with other public bodies Please provide all communications between the GLA / Royal Docks team and: 

1. the London Borough of Southwark; 

2. the London Borough of Lewisham; 

where those communications contain any of the following terms: 

- “5 million” 

- “£5m” 

- “nearly £5 million” 

- “Southwark debt” 

- “RLG” 

- “Really Local Group” 

- “Peckham Levels” 

- “Preston Benson” 

For the avoidance of doubt, this includes emails, attachments, briefing notes, meeting notes, call notes, instant messages, and document comments. 

6. Non-corporate channels used for official business 

If any relevant official information was held in non-corporate communication channels used for GLA business, including private email accounts, WhatsApp, text messages, or other messaging platforms, please provide: 

1. the recorded information itself, if held by or on behalf of the GLA; 

2. any record showing that relevant custodians were asked to search such channels; 

3. any policy, instruction, or retrieval note used in response to this request. 

7. Search methodology Please confirm: 

1. which teams, custodians, and repositories were searched; 

2. the search terms used; 

3. the date range applied; 

4. whether archived, deleted, or transferred records were searched; 

5. whether any potentially relevant material was withheld and, if so, the exemption or exception relied upon. 

If any information is withheld, please specify for each category of withheld material: 

1. whether the information is held; 

2. the exemption under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 or exception under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 relied upon; 

3. the basis of any public interest decision, where applicable.

Our response

1.Source of the “publicly available information” 

a. No records held

b. as above

c. n/a

2. First internal appearance of the figure

a. An earlier version of the Briefing Note dated December 12th referenced a £3m-£4m figure. The December 13th Briefing is the first record of a £5m figure.

b. December 13th in the identified Briefing

c. No records held

d. n/a

3. Drafting and approval of the Royal Docks wording

a. The names of junior level staff are exempt from disclosure under s.40 (Personal information) of the Freedom of Information Act. This information could potentially identify specific employees and as such constitutes as personal data which is defined by Article 4(1) of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) to mean any information relating to an identified or identifiable living individual. It is considered that disclosure of this information would contravene the first data protection principle under Article 5(1) of GDPR which states that Personal data must be processed lawfully, fairly and in a transparent manner in relation to the data subject.

b. The briefing was reviewed by Junior level Royal Docks staff, and their names are exempt from disclosure (as explained above). The briefing was approved by Dan Bridge, Royal Docks Programme Director and Simon Powell, Assistant Director of Strategic Projects and Property (before being seen by Tim Steer, Executive Director, Housing and Land)

c. As above – an earlier draft referenced a £3m-£4m figure.

d. Other than the change identified above there were no such communications or edits

4. Verification, challenge, revision, or correction

a. No records held

b. No records held

c. No records held

d. No records held

5. Communications with other public bodies

There are no records in any of the formats identified that address the first four terms (“5 million”, “£5m”, “nearly £5 million” and “Southwark debt”).

Records relating to the latter four terms (“RLG”, “Really Local Group”, “Peckham Levels”, “Preston Benson”) have been provided by the GLA to the applicant under a previous FOI. 

6. Non-corporate channels used for official business

a. No records held

b. Do not understand the request – please provide further clarification.

c. Do not understand the request – please provide further clarification.

7. Search methodology

Do not understand the request because the scope of all requested searches are specified above.

 

 

.