FOI - LB Brent and Affordable Homes Programme [Jun 2023]

You request

1. Indicate the total amount of grant funding currently allocated, provisionally or definitively, from the 2021-26 Affordable Homes Programme to the London Borough of Brent (LBB); if more than one tranche is included, provide amounts and dates. 
2. Provide a list of specific projects, with indicative amounts, to which this funding is provisionally or definitively allocated; include details of any changes since the original allocation was made.
3. I have attached a Guidance Note to Investment Partners dated 2 February 2023; provide copies of any similar subsequent guidance documents on the AHP 2021-26 fund. 
4. Provide copies of all but purely administrative correspondence, from 16 March 2016 to date, between any part of the GLA and LBB or Network Homes, concerning the Kilburn Square Housing Infill scheme (abandoned under the 2016-23 programme).
5. How much funding from the 2016-23 programme was not utilised for qualifying projects? Is there any likelihood that unused funds could be carried forward for ongoing projects?

Our response

Question 1

The 2021-26 Affordable Homes Programme funding allocations from the first funding round 
are published on the GLA website.

As explained in the letter that you attached to your email from the GLA to Investment Partners that was sent on 2 February 2023, due to the changing macroeconomic conditions since the first funding round, some Investment Partners are re-forecasting their funding allocations in line with the parameters set out in the GLA’s letter. The GLA and LBB are in ongoing conversations about Brent’s re-forecast funding allocation.

Question 2

LBB’s funding allocation in the Affordable Homes Programme 2021-26 is an indicative funding allocation.

Indicative allocations are for proposed sites that will be identified and acquired throughout the course of the programme, and therefore there are currently no named projects that are linked to this funding. 

The GLA and LBB are in ongoing conversations about how best to utilise LBB's indicative grant allocation to support projects that will be delivered by the Borough within the timescales and parameters of the Affordable Homes Programme 2021-26. 

Question 3

The funding requirements for the next Affordable Homes Programme 2021-26, are set out in the Programme Funding Guidance and the GLA’s capital funding guide, linked below: 

• Homes for Londoners: Affordable Homes Programme 2021-2026 Funding Guidance
• Affordable Housing Capital Funding Guide
• Further guidance is available on the GLA’s website

Question 4

Your request falls under the exception to disclose because it is considered to be ‘manifestly unreasonable’ under Regulation 12(4)(b) of the Environmental Information Regulation (EIR). 

This provision allows public authorities to refuse requests which are obviously or clearly 
unreasonable or when the estimated cost of compliance is too great. 

In reaching this decision we have considered the views of the Upper (Information Rights) 
Tribunal in ‘Craven v IC & DECCC [2012] UKUT442 (AAC)’ in respect of the EIR exception 
under regulation 12(4)(b), the formal guidance issued by the Information Commissioner’s 
Office1, along with Decision Notices regarding this EIR exception, such as FS50585926, amongst others, which all acknowledge that public authorities may use the fees regulations as the basis of considering the cost and time of complying with a request. 

A search of one staff account has revealed that it contains 521 emails items that are potentially within the scope of your request, many of which also include attachments. There are at least 8 further staff accounts that will need to be checked. We expect the results to increase significantly as we expand the searches over other accounts. Locating and retrieving all correspondence from March 2016 to the current date on this project is therefore a large undertaking. 

In this instance, we have decided this request falls within the parameters of regulation 12(4)(b) and is manifestly unreasonable because of the considerable amount of time that would be required to collate and review the information. The nature of the requested information 
necessitates it be reviewed initially by members of staff within our Housing and Land team who are experienced with the background of Kilburn square and would place an unacceptable burden on their limited resources and constitute an unreasonable distraction from normal work. 

A public authority can only withhold information if the public interest in maintaining the 
exception outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information. We are mindful of the 
general public interest in transparency and accountability, and of the presumption in favour of disclosure and to read exceptions restrictively.

A sizeable proportion of the information we have identified would likely engage one or more of the disclosure-exception (exemption) provisions of the EIR. 

We would consequentially have to spend a considerable amount of time reviewing each piece of information individually and consulting with a number of third parties to consider whether or not it would be exempt from disclosure.

The time and resources required to review this information would be unreasonable given the potential for it to remain exempt information.

Further consideration is also given to the ‘rolling’ nature of the requests you have submitted 
which broadly cover the same subject matter.

The aforementioned ICO guidance for Regulation 12(4)(b) states that: 'there may be occasions where it is permissible to consider a number of EIR requests together when deciding if they are manifestly unreasonable because of cost or burden.'

Further guidance for anyone who wishes to submit a request should make there request as 
specific as possible. It also states that 'requesters should not: …submit catch-all requests such as 'send me everything about x'. Public bodies can refuse requests that they think are too broad or burdensome.

Where you have asked for specific information as per the other parts of your request then it is much more likely that your requests will not be refused. 

On balance therefore, it is our view that the public interest in maintaining the exception in 
regulation 12(4)(b) outweighs the public interest in disclosure. I understand this response may cause frustration but it aims to ensure, as recognised in the guidance, that our responsibilities under the Act do not distract from our other statutory functions as a public authority.

When refusing a request for environmental information under regulation 12(4)(b) on the grounds of cost, public authorities are required to provide advice and assistance and explaining how a request may be refined. However, your current request has a particularly broad time frame and is not limited to any particular subject matter regarding the scheme. 

You may wish to consider reducing the scope of your request by:

• asking for specific information or ask clear questions and
• limiting it to a recent time period for communications and meetings (for example a six month period)
• and identifying particular themes or subjects for the correspondence that we can use to filter the email correspondence related to this scheme (for example correspondence related to the density of the scheme) and/ or 
• any specific types of documentation or meetings you require in which you are most interested in. 

Manifestly unreasonable requests

How to write an effective request for information

Question 5

The Affordable Homes Programme 2016-23 is now closed for funding.

If you have any further questions relating to this matter, please contact us, quoting  reference MGLA090623-9466.