Thread by @Andrewwood17

MHCLG FOI response to Westerry Printworks submitted 1st July, answered yesterday
It says of 13th Jan meetings described in Sunday Times story "To be helpful we can advise the meeting you refer to as described in the Sunday Times on 13 January, did not take place"
The story
1/

contained a lot of detail about the meeting, where, when, who, what said what with descriptions
@mhclg now saying the meeting reported by the @thetimes did not take place
I think the FOI says more then that it did not happen on that day
But rest of
2/
thetimes.co.uk/article/were-g…

FOI does not answer my questions but does say two very interesting things
"The department holds no further information in scope of your request" &
"These documents focus on the time period between the .... 9 September 2019 and ... 14 January 2020"
Why is this important?
3/

FOI questions were designed in part to prove that certain things did not exist
Also that document release on 24th June covered period from 9th September 2019 onwards, I do not think that had been made clear before but very important as to what Jenrick knew when
4/

a. There was no written record at MHCLG of the fund raising dinner, Robert Jenrick may have told officials but not recorded anywhere!
b. No information had been given to Jenrick by his officials from 9th September about the application (appeal finished then) until 13th Dec
5/

So where did Jenrick get his knowledge of scheme in the week beginning 18th November at the fundraising dinner? it is now clearer he did not get it from MHCLG, meaning the only source must have been Desmond at the dinner, he says they did not discuss!
But more importantly
6/

FOI strongly suggests Robert Jenrick was given no information about CIL £ impact or ⬆️CIL rates or any concerns about viability of the scheme by MHCLG officials at any point
Would not have known need for quick decision pre-13th Dec but was asking for quick decision November
7/

But Robert Jenrick had concerns about all of those things
But no evidence now that he got those concerns from his officials (he appears to suggest he got them by reading 166 page inspectors report but I do not think that is plausible but submitted FOI on that issue last week)
8/

My 1st question (left pic) about the documents shared with the Cabinet Office (the Prime Minister decided no investigation was required) kind of had an answer (right pic) but a masterclass in how to answer a Q without answering it
9/

In summary clear MHCLG are not going to be helpful, no Cabinet Office enquiry at PM's request, Police investigation closed
But I will complain to @mhclg about their response to 1st FOI, see earlier thread, it is not credible given other information

https://twitter.com/Andrewwood17/status/1288041948427825152?s=20

10/

But now a lot of information available & big holes remain in the story especially about where Robert Jenrick got his concerns about viability from & why did not deal with £85 million benefit to Desmond from timing & nature of decision on affordable housing
11/

Another Minister still has to make a decision on the original 2018 planning application, I cannot see how that can be done with so many unresolved issues
So will consider next steps when I pull everything together
FOI copies here cllrandrewwood.com/news/freedom-o…
12/