Comhairle Contae Fhine Gall An Roinn um Pleanail agus i Fingal County Council lnfrastrucht?r Strait?iseach . Planning and Strategic Infrastructure Department Ken Foxe, Right to Know, CLG 24??June 2020 Re: Freedom of Information Request (Of?ce of the Information Commissioner - Case Number Dear Mr Foxe I refer to your request under the Freedom of Information Act 2014 and the decision letter of the Office of the Information Commissioner dated 27th May 2020 in relation to case number 61587-2962N8 Please see enclosed records which were directed for release Yours sincerely, Gene Grif?n Administrative Of?cer Planning Strategic Infrastructure Department Forfheidhmiu Plean?la, Bosca 174, Aras an Chontae, Sord, Fine Gall, Co. Bhaile Atha Cliath Planning Enforcement Section, PO. Box 174, County Hall, Swords, Fingal, Co. Dublin K67 X8Y2 t: (01) 890 500 e: planningenforcement?fingalie w: Case Number: Applicant: Public Body: Issue: Review: Decision: Right of Appeal: Review Application to the Information Commissioner under the Freedom of Information Act 2014 (the FOI Act) Mr. Ken Foxe, Right to Know Fingal County Council (Council) Whether the Council was justified in refusing access to records relating to a particular site under sections 29, and 37(1) of the FOI Act Conducted in accordance with section 22(2) of the FOI Act by Elizabeth Dolan, Senior Investigator, who is authorised by the Information Commissioner to conduct this review The Senior Investigator varied the Council?s decision. She affirmed its decision on certain information in some of the records under sections 30(1)(a) and 37(1) of the FOI Act. She annulled its decision on the remaining information in the records and directed its release. Section 24 of the FOI Act sets out detailed provisions for an appeal to the High Court by a party to a review, or any other person affected by the decision. In summary, such an appeal, normally on a point of law, must be initiated by the applicant not later than eight weeks after notice of the decision was given, and by any other party not later than four weeks after notice of the decision was given. Background On 8 November 2019, the-applicant made an request to the Council for records relating to an identified site, for the period since his previous request on 17 July 2019. On 8 January 2020, the Council issued a decision. It granted access to some records and refused access to the remaining records on the grounds that they were exempt under sections 35(1)(a) and 37(1) of the FOI Act. On 8 January 2020, the applicant applied for an internal review. The Council issued an internal reviewdecision on 30 January 2020, in which it affirmed its decision. On'5 February 2020, the applicant applied to this Office for a review of the Council's decision. in conducting my review, I have had regard to the correspondence between the applicant and the Council as outlined above and to the correspondence between this Office and both parties, as well as the content of the records that were provided to this Office by the Council for the purposes of this review. Scop_e of this Review The question for me is whether the withheld records identified by the Council are exempt under sections 29, 35(1)(a) and 37(1) of the FOI Act. Preliminary Matters Before considering the exemptions claimed, wish to note the following points. First, while am required to give reasons for my decision under section 22(10) of the Act, i am also required to take reasonable precautions to prevent disclosure of information in an exempt record, under section 25. This means that the extent to which I can describe the records and the level of detail I can discuss in my analysis are limited. Secondly, section 18 of the FOI Act provides that if it is practicable, records may be granted in part, by excluding the exempt material. Section 18 shall not apply if the copy of the record provided would be misleading. This Office takes the view that the provisions of section 18 do not envisage or require the extracting of particular sentences or occasional paragraphs from records for the purpose of granting access to those particular sentences or paragraphs. Generally speaking, therefore, this Office is not in favour of the cutting or "dissecting? of records to such an extent. Being "practicable" necessarily means taking a reasonable and proportionate approach in determining whether to grant access to parts of records. Analysis and Findings Section 37 - Personal Information The Council claims section 37(1) of the FOI Act over certain information in Records which it withheld or redacted from the copies released. Having reviewed Records '4 and 6, I consider it appropriate to examine certain information in these records under section 37(1) also. For completeness, I note that Record 7 is a duplicate of Record 1 so I will not make any separate findings on it. Section 37(1) of the FOI Act provides that access to a record shall be refused if it would involve the disclosure of personal information. The FOI Act defines the term "personal information" as information about an identifiable individual that would, in the ordinary course of events, be known only to the individual or his/her family or friends, or information about the individual that is held by a public body on the understanding that it would'be treated as confidential. The FOI Act I do not consider-that releasing this particular information would serve the public interest in transparency around the Council's carrying out of its functions. On balance, I do not consider that the public interest that the request should be granted outweighs the right to privacy of the individuals to whom the records relate. I therefore find that section 37(5)(a) does not apply in the circumstances. It has not been argued that releasing the records would benefit the third parties to whom the information relates and I find that section 37(5)(b) does not apply in the circumstances. I find that the Council was justified in refusing access to this information under section 37(1) of the FOI Act. However, the relevant information in Record 24 comprises the name of a staff member of an FOI body and an observation on the site made by that individual. do not accept that this qualifies as personal information under section 2 of the FOI Act. i find that section 37(1) does not apply to it and the Council was notjustified in refusing access to it under section 37(1) of the FOI Act. Given this finding, lam not required to consider the Council?s claim for exemption under section 35 over certain information in' Records 4 and 6. Section 30(1)(a) Functions and negotiations of FOI bodies The Council claims section 30(1)(a) over Records 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15,- 17, 18, 22, 24, 25 and 27. Section 30(1)(a) allows an FOI body to refuse to grant an FOI request if access to the record concerned could, in the opinion of the head, reasonably be expected to prejudice the effectiveness of tests, examinations etc conducted by or on behalf of an FOI body or the procedures or methods employed for the conduct thereof. Section 30(1) Is subject to a public interest test under section 30(2). Submissions The Council says that matters at the site concerned are subject to ongoing examination in terms of agreed works andas works advance and the site clears, it reveals new issues for investigation and examination. It says that this requires ongoing investigations and negotiations with the site owner and the consultants engaged by the site owner. It submits that this process would not be well served by putting these details in?the public domain. It says that details of the methods and procedures adopted by the Council are best kept confidential in the interests of reaching a good outcome. It says that it is in the public interest to resolve matters as quickly as possible. It submits that the public interest is served by the provision of the information on the schedule of records, which indicates the interaction with the site owner and the nature of that interaction. The Council also says that its overall aim is to preventlpublic access to the site and submits that disclosing the records would not be helpful in this regard. Analysis and Findings The records comprise correspondence between the Council and a planning consultancy and conservation architect engaged by the owner of the site. They relate to proposed works on the site, protection plans and a schedule of works. They include notes of meetings between the Council and site owner and consultants about progress on the works. There is some duplication in the content, owing to the nature of the email ?strings?. details fourteen specific categories of information which is personal without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing definition. These include information relating to the employment or employment history of the individual? and ?(xii) the name of the individual where it appears with other personal information relating to the individual or where disclosure of the name would, or would be likely to, establish that any personal information held by the public body concerned relates to the individual". It is very important to note that information which comes within any of the fourteen categories specified at paragraphs to (xiv) is also personal information - there is no requirement for information falling within to (xiv) to also meet the requirements of paragraphs or Paragraphs and II of section 2 of the FOI Act exclude certain matters from the definition of "persona-l information", including the names of staff members of an FOI body and information relating to their office, as well as the names of service providers to FOI bodies and information relating to their service. The Commissioner takes the view that this exclusion is intended, in essence, to ensure that section 37 will not be used to exempt the identity of a public servant while carrying out his or her official functions, but does not deprive public servants of the right to privacy generally. As the applicant may have deduced from the redacted copies released to him, the information concerned comprises the names, mobile telephone numbers, email addresses and personal leave details of various individuals other than the applicant, including persons who made enquiries of the Council concerning the site. For the avoidance of doubt, the consultants to the site owner are not service providers to the Council and therefore do not fall within the exclusion at Paragraph ll of section 2 of the FOI Act. Furthermore, I do not consider that the personal leave details of the staff members of an FOI body fall within the exclusion at Paragraph of section 2. With the exception of Record 24, which I deal with bel0w, I am satisfied that the information concerned is personal information within the meaning of the Act. Section 37(2) of the FOI Act sets out certain circumstances in which section 37(1) does not apply. I am satisfied that none of the circumstances in section 37(2) apply to the information concerned. I am then required to consider section 37(5) as it applies to the information. Section 37(5) of the FOI Act provides that access to the personal information of a third party may be granted where the public interest that the request should be granted outweighs the right to privacy of the individual to whom the information relates, or thelgrant of the request would benefit the person to whom the information relates. The FOI Act itself recognises the public interest in ensuring the openness and accountability of public bodies. 'On the other hand, however, the language of section 37 and the Long Title to the FOI Act recognise a very strong public interest in protecting the right to privacy, which has a Constitutional dimension, as one ofthe un?enumerated personal rights under the Constitution. Accordingly, when considering section privacy rights will be set aside only where the public interest served by granting the request (and breaching those rights) is sufficiently strong to outweigh the public interest in protecting privacy. I accept that these records relate to an investigation or inquiry etc. by the Council for the purposes of section 30(1)(a) of the FOI Act, as they relate to the Council?s investigation into the plans and ongoing works for the site concerned. Furthermore, I am satisfied that disclosing them while the process is ongoing could reasonably be expected to prejudice the effectiveness of the Council?s ongoing investigation and engagement with the site owner and their consultants, which require a confidential flow of information about details of the site and works. I am also cognisant of the particular sensitivities around the site concerned. I therefore find that section 30(1)(a) applies to the records. I must then go on to consider the public interest test under section 30(2). 0n the one hand, I consider that there is a public interest in enhancing the transparency and accountability of the Council in its exercise of statutory functions to deal with derelict sites, dangerous structures and protected structures. Section 11(3) of the FOI Act requires public bodies performing functions under the FOI Act to have regard to, among other things, the need to achieve greater openness in their activities and the need to strengthen their accountability and to improve their decision- making. On the other hand, there is a countervailing public interest in ensuring that the effectiveness of the Council?s functions is not prejudiced. In deciding whether, on balance, the public interest would be better served by granting than by refusing to grant the request, I consider it appropriate to distinguish between the content of different records and what that would disclose if released. I believe that disclosing the following information would serve the public interest in achieving transparency around the Council?s exercise of its functions: Records 2, 3, 5, 8, 9 (page 2 onlyand 27. ifind that the Council was not justified in refusing access to these records under section 30(1)(a) of the FOI Act. However, I consider that Records 4, 6, 9 (page 1 onlyrelate more to the site itself, which is privately owned, than to the Council?s involvement in fulfilling its statutory functions. I therefore find that the Council was justified in refusing access to those records under section 30(1)(a) of the FOI Act. Section 29 Deliberations of public bodies Sections 29(1)(a) 8: Deliberative Process and the Public Interest The Council claims section 29(1) over Records and 27. Given my finding under section 30, i am only required to consider section 29(1) in relation to Records 2, 3, 5, 8, 9 (page 2 only), 13, 14, 15, 17, 18 and 27. Section 29(1) of the FOI Act provides that an FOI body may refuse to grant an request if the record contains matter relating to the deliberative process and granting the request would be contrary to the public interest. These are two independent requirements and the fact that the first is met carries no presumption that the second is also met. it is therefore important for public bodies to show to the satisfaction of the Commissioner that both requirements-are met. The public interest test contained in this provision differs from the public interest test found in? other exemptions under the FOI Act. To avail of this exemption, the public body must be of the opinion that releasing the records would be against the public interest. Other exemptions require the public body to be of the opinion that the public interest would be better served by release. in my view, this exemption tends more strongly towards release of the records. The exemption at section 29(1) does not apply to a record insofar as it contains factual information (section Section 2 of the FOI Act states that "factual information" includes information of a statistical, financial, econometric or'empirical nature, together with any analysis thereof. The Commissioner regards factual information as including material presented to provide a factual background to the central topic in a record, and that factual information is distinguishable from information in the form of a proposal, opinion or recommendation. Submissions The Council says that the deliberative process relates to a decision that it may have to take in terms of enforcement action by way of statutory notice. It submits that it is best to conduct negotiations with the site owner confidentially and it is not in the public interest to release the records, as that could compromise negotiations to achieve a good outcome. Analysis and Findings A deliberative process may be described as a thinking process which informs decision-making in FOI bodies. It involves the gathering of information from a variety of sources and weighing or considering carefully all of the information and facts obtained with aview to making a decision or reflecting ,upon the reasons for or against a particular choice. Having reviewed the content of the remaining records, I am not satisfied that section 29(1)(a) applies to them. I consider that they contain factual information related to the Council?s investigation and examination of the works on the Site. Having regard to the overlap between the Council?s submissions on sections 29 and 30, I believe that its argument is more properly viewed as a claim under section 30, which I have addressed above. I find that section 29(1)(a) does not apply to the remaining records and the Council was not justified in refusing access to them under section 29 of the FOI Act. Decision Having carried out a review under section 22(2) of the FOI Act, I 'vary the Council's decision as follows. I affirm its decision to withhold certain records and parts of records under sections 30(1)(a) and 37(1) of the FOI Act, as outlined above. I annul its decision to withhold the remaining information and direct its release. The information which falls for release is as follows: Records 2, 3, 5, 8, 9 (page 2 onlyand 27. For the avoidance of doubt, any names and contact details of individuals other than staff members of FOI bodies should be redacted, in accordance with my finding under section 37(1) of the FOI Act. Right of Appeal Section 24 of the FOI Act sets out detailed provisions for'an appeal to the High Court by a party to a review, or any other person affected by the decision. In Summary, such an appeal, normally on a point of law, must be initiated by the applicant not later than eight weeks after notice of the decision was given, and by any other party not later than four weeks after notice of the decision was given. Elizabeth Doian Senior Investigator 27 May 2020 Helena Begln I From: Martin Byrne Sent: 09 August 2019 09:40 To: . Cc: Helena Bergm; Gene Grif?n Subject: RE: . Hi John, Just a reminder about the letter. Gene and Helena are both leave this week but you could email it to me, Helena and Gene by this a?emoon then I can have a look at it. Regards, Martin Byrne law Ci 1 Executive We? Bull Environment Inspectorate Fingal County Council I County Hall. Swede. Co. Dublin .5 Please cashier the Erna/from? before pn'n?ag mail From: - . . '3 Sent: 06 August 2019 11:53 To: Gene Gn'f?n Cc: Martin Byrne; Helena Bergin; Subject: RE: Hi Gene lam just back from AL I will get that letter you to this week. In my absence we have appointed the rest of the team including to deal with the conservation Issues. Many thanks 7:11:29 emails Eran ?3.19 sender and Sent: 30 July 2019 17. 22 To: m. evme? Helena Berg-n? Subject: Good evening he I refer to the Council?s site meeting with you and the owners of lenwood House held on theis?? July 2019. Arising from discussio-nson site it is noted that you agreed at this meeting to submit a written proposed programme of works within 2 weeks on. behaif of the Owners for co nsideration by the local authority Please. submit same as soon as possible and the local authority will revert to you following consideration ofthe proposals Further dialogue with you and the owners will be necessary before a programme of ?forks can be agreed.- . Please include my colleagues on any email reply Le. Martin Byrne and Helena Sergio. Both are cc?d on this e-ma-ii Regards Gene Griffin Ad miriistratiye Officer Derelict Sites Section -This email and any ?les transmitted with it are cen?dential and may be legally privileged It is intended solely for the addressee. If you are net the intended recipient any disclosure copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawfu-L If you have received this electronic message in error, piease notify the sender orI itservicedest?ngal. ie. Internet communications cannot be. guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete. Therefore, we do not accept responsibility for any errors or omissions that are present in this message, or any attachment, that have arisen as a result of e- -mail transmission This message has been swept by Anti? Virus software. an r?omhphost seo agus aon chomhad a ghabhann leis faOi r?n agus d'fh7adfadh s? a bheith faoi phribhl?id Is ar an seola? amh?in at? s? d?rithe. Mura an faighteoir beartaithe, t? cosc ar eon nochtagdh c?ipe?il d?iieadh, n? aon ghn?omh a dh7anamh n? a fh?g?il ar l?r i dtaca leis an r?omhphost agus d?fh?adfadh sin a bheith . m?dhleathach. t? an r?omhphost see faighte agat tr? dhearrnad, cuir an seblt?ir n? itservicedestfingal. ie ar an eolas. f?idir cumars?id .idirl?n a r?th?? a bheith- 5 ?n n? saor earr?id? mar d'fh?adfadh faisn?is a bh'eith idircheaptha truaiilithe, cail?lte scriosta, n? teacht d??an"ach n? neamhiornl?I?n. bhr? sin Ii? f?idir linn glacadh? le freagracht as eon earr?ld? n? eaSnaimh at? sa teaChtaireacht seo, n7 aon iat?n, a th7inig chun cinn mar thoradh ar an tarchur an teaChtaireacht cuardaithe ag bogearra? Frithv7reas Helena Benin From: . Gene Griffin . Sent: 23 August 2019 11:17 To: Subject: RE: Noted. We are still not in receipt of the below The period for submission has passed, we can extend but require by this day week Friday 30?h August. Regards Gene From: sent: 06 August 2019 11:53 To: Gene Griffin . Ct: Martin Byrne; Helena Bergin; Subject: RE: . Hi Gene lam just back from AL i will get that letter you to this week. In my absence, we have appointed the rest of the team including the conservation issues. Many thanks .2 'tects to deal with i .. . swung ammq 6:912 this. abs?hi3; and -he Trim: Gene Grif?t? Sent: 30 July 2019 17:22 To cc: Martin ayme?.- Helena Bergm? Subject: Good evening. I refer to the Council?s site meeting with you and the owners of Glenwoocl House held on the 15? July 2019. Arising from discussions on site, it is noted that you agreed at this meeting to submit a written proposed programme of works within 2 weeks on behalf of the owners for consideration by the local authority. Please submit same as soon as possible and the local authority will revert to you following consideration ofthe proposals. Further dialogue with you and Ehe owners. will be necessary before a prograrnme of works can be agreed Please include my colleagues on any e-mail repiyi Martin Byrne and l-lelena Bergin. Both are add on. this e-Inail Regards Gene Griffin - Admin-istratiVe Officer Derelict Sites.$ection This email and any files transmitted with it are con?dential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. If you are not the intended recipien-,t any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it is prohibited and may be unlawfuh If you have received this electronic message in error, please notify the sender orI itservicedest?ngal.e ie. Internet communications cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted corrupted lost, destroyed arrive late or incomwplete- Therefore, we do not accept responsibility for any errors or omissions that are present In this message, or any attachment that have arisen as a result of e- -mail transmission This message has been swept by Anti-Virus software. an r?or'nhphost seo agus aon chomhad? a ghabhann leis 'faoi r?n agus d?fh's?adfadh s? a bheith fadi phribhl?id dhl?thli?il. Is ar an seola? amhi?in at? s? d?rithe. Mura t? an faighteoir beartaithe, t? cosc a'r aon nochtadh c?ipe?il d?ileadh n? aon ghn?omh a . dhi?anamh n? a fh?g?il ar I dtaca leis an r?omhphost agus d'f-h7adfadh sin a bheith m7dhleathaC-h. t? an r?omhphost seo faighte agat tr? dhearr?nad cuir? an seolt?ir n?it tservicedest?ngalme ear an eolas. f?idir cumars?id idirl?n a r?th? a bheith sl?n n? saor earr?id? mar d'fh?adfadh faisn?is a bheith idircheaptha, truaillithe, caiilte scriosta, n? teacht d?anach n? neamhioml'i?n . bhr? sin f?i:dir linn glacadh le freagracht as aon earr7id? n? easnaimh at? seo n? aon iatiin a th?inig chun cinn mar thoradh aran tarchu?r' r?omhphoist . an teachtaireacht cuardaithe ag bogearra? Frithv?r?eas From: Helena Bergin Sent: . 28 August 2019 15:34 To: Gene Grif?n; Martin Byrne Cc: . Colin Gallagher; Slnead Murphy Subject: RF.- Glenwood House. Lucan. Co. Dublin Gene, lam available Fri 30 In after-noon or anytime on Mon 2. The area planner should also be included as drawing shows demolition of the large corrugated shed to rear. Regards, Helena Helena Bergln Senior Exewtlve Conservation Of?cer F-lngal Cou -ni Cwil, Coun? Hall, Main Streiw Swords Co. i,Dublln K67 X8Y2 Aoileann Ni Oi?gead: ChaOmhnuch?in Ailtireachta Sinsearach Comhalrle Cho ae Fhine Gall, Halla an Chant _ie, 56rd Balle Atha Cliath K67 xavz 25 new? 533, In?; From: Gene Grl??ln Sent: 28 August 2019 11:10 . To: Martin Byme; Helena Bergin Cc: Colin Gallagher; Slnead Murphy Subject: FW: Glenwood House, Lucan, Co. Dublin Importance: - Martin\Helena I suggest we meet in the coming days to discuss Regards Gene From: Sent: 28 AugUst 2019 10:42 To: Gene Cc: lelena Bergln Subject: Glem?nood House, Lucan, Co, Dublin Importance: High Hi Gene, My apologies for not making contact sooner, has asked me to follow-up with you regarding the protection plan for Glenwood House. It' has taken some time to putia: team together for this, the main reason being the time of year with many co nsuitants on annual leave and: another factor is the notoriety of. the site. We now have a team in place and i have attached a letter outlining the proposed: phasing and timelines for enacting the Protection Plan. - Stage 1: It is proposedi'to Clean- the site- and removal all rubbish etc from the site.- . Stage 2: It Is proposed that the site will be secured. Stage 3: The Protected Structures will be propped and sealed as per the Conservation Architects Protection Plan. and under his SUpervision. . The clients have appointed a contractor to carry out the site clearance and site security for the site, they will begin once we receive con?rmation from yourselve?s- that you are happy with What is being proposed. i? hate attached a site Iago ut plan detailing the site security measures proposed .for your approval. I have also attached a letter which outlines the anticipated timeframe for putting in place the above 3 stages. has been appointed as the Conservation Architect for the project and have been appointed to assess the structural elernents of the site and its Protected Structures, both parties met on site Monday, 26th of August 2019. hasalso been in contact with Helena Bet-gin with respect to the detail reouired for the protection plan. I understand these discussions are on-going and it is anticipated that will have the Protection Plan completed Within the coming days. I trust the attached isto your satisfaction, my apologhs again for the delay in getting this information to you. We envisage now that-as the various consultants have been appointed?we should have the site secured and protected within the coming weeks, subject to. Fingal county Countils approval of the details. I will be; in touch as soon as has the Protection Plan-complete. We would appreciate it if you could review the site security measures attached and come back to me with any feedback/comments. - Many thanks, l'ele?na Ber in 'om: - Helena Bargin mt: 28 Au ust 019 15:38 a: iject: Glenwoo - Rachments: Glenwood House_Conservation images_A.PDF )Ul'id this document frothhat-h?d- images of condition of property when recent planning application ibm'ltted. a?gards, elena elen? Bergln 1 Senior Executlve Architectural Conservation Of?cer wga .County uncil, County Hell,-Main Street. Swords, Co. Dublin, K67 X8Y2 I mm - illeann Ni hAlmhirgfn Oi?geach Chaomhnuch?in Ailtireachta Feidhml?ch?ln Slnsearach )mhairle Chontae Fhine Gall, Halla an Chontae, 56rd, Baile Atha Cliath, K67 X8Y2 I.-. Imttz? 2 531mm Contae it Comm From: Helena Bergin Sent: 29 August 2019 17:15 To: Gene Grif?n Subject: RE: Glenwood House, Lucan, Co. Dublin Ok Helena Bergln Senior Executive Ard'utectural Conservation Of?cer Fingal County Ciuncli, County Hall, Main Street, Swords. Co. Dublin, K67 X8Y2 II_?Im?nzaue Aolleann Ni hAlmhirgin Oi?geach Chaomhnuchain Ailtlreachta Feidhmiuchain Slnsearach Comhairle Chomae Fhine Gall, Halla an Chontae, 56rd, Baile Atha Cilath, K67 X8Y2 mm 25 mam WCW . From: Gene Grif?n Sent: 29 August 2019 15:00 To: Martin Byrne; Helena Bergin; Colin Gallagher Subjea: RE: Glenwood House, Lucan, Co. Dublin Say 3pm on Friday in my office folks?? From: Martin Byrne Sent: '29 August 2019 14:53 To: Helena Bergln; Gene Grif?n Cc: Colin Gallagher Subject: RE: Glenwood House, Lucan, Co. Dublin Hl Helena, Gene, . - spoke to Colin about and he would like?to stay involved in this one and,so would like to attend this meeting. I am free on Friday afternoon but am not available on Monday after 11.00am. Martin Bymo CE ?cutlve En in vironmentlnepectoratelF-?mgal Swords,Co. Dublin? is Pm coma? ?re Envimnmf befall: pn'n?ng this E?mail 25 mm ILIMQ "an! From: Helena Bergin Sent: 28 August 2019 15:34 To: Gene Grif?n; Martin Byrne Cc: Colin Galbgher; Sinead Murphy Subject: RE: Glenwood House, Luoen, Co. Dublin Gene. I am available Fri 30 in afternoon or anytime on Mon 2. The area planner should also be included as drawing shows demolition ofthe. large corrugated shed to rear RegardsHelena Helena Bergin Senior Conservation Of?cer Fingal County Council, County Hall, Maln Street, Swords. Co. Dublin, K67 - mm an Aolleann Ni hAimhirgin Oi?geach Chaomhn?ch?in Ailtireachta Feidhmi?ch?in Slnsearadt Comhairle Cho hine Gail Halla an Chontae, 56rd Balle Atha Cliath, K67 X8Y2 - 253*?? $31 ?an - From: Gene Grif?n - Sent: 28 August .2019 11:10 To: Martin Byrne; HeierIa-Bergin Cc: Colin Gallagher; Sinead Murphy . Subject: House, Lucan, Col Dublin Importance: High Martin\HeIena I suggest we meet in the coming days to discuss Regards I . Gene - . me: Sent: 28 August 2019 10:42 To: Gene Grif?n cc: Helena Bergin Stibjed: Glenwood House,Lucan, Co. Dublin Importance: High Hi Gene, My apologies for not making contact sooner, has asked me to follow?up with you regarding the protection plan for Glenwood House. - .. It has taken some time to put a team together for this, the main reason being the time of year with many consultants on annual leave and another factor' Is the notoriety of. the site. We now have a team in place and I have attached a letter outlining the proposed phasing and timelines for enacting the Protection Plan. - - Stage 1: It is proposed to clean the site and removal all rubbish etc from the site. Stage 2: It' Is pro posed that the site will be secured. 57 Stage 3. The Protected Structures will be propped and sealed as per the Conservation Architects Protection Plan and under his supervision. The clients have appointed'a contractor to carry out the site clearance and site security for the site, they will begin once we receive confirmation from yourselves that you are happy'with what is being proposed. have attached a site layout pian detailing the site security measures proposed for your approval. i have also attached 'a letter which outlines the anticipated timeframe for putting in place the above 3 stages. has been'appointed as the Conservation Architect'for the project and? ngInee rs have been appointed to assess the structural elements of the site and its Protected Structures, both parties met on site Monday, 26?'1 of August 2019. has also been in contact with Helena Bergin with respect to the detail required for the protection plan. i understand these discussions are on going and it is anticipated that . I Will have the Protection Plan completed within the coming days. i trust the attached is to your satisfaction, my apologies again for the delay in getting this information to you. We envisage now that as the various consultants have been appointed we should have the site secured and protected within the comingwe?eks, subject to Fingal county Councils approval of the details. i will be in touch as soon as has the Protection Plan compiete. We would appreciate'it if you could review the site security measures. attached and come back to me with any feedback/comments. Many thanks, . 25 From: - - f, Sent: 28 August 2019 10: 42? -- To: Gene Grif?n Helena Bergln Subied: Glenwmd House, Lucan, Co. Dublin Importance: High Hi Gene, My apologies for not making contact sooner,?has asked me to follow-up with you regarding the protection plan for Glenwood House. It has taken some time to put a team together for this, the main reason being the time of year with many consultants on annual leave and another factor ls the notoriety of the site. We now have a team in place and have attached a letter outlining the prOposed phasing and timelines for enacting the Protection Plan Stage -1: it is proposed to clean the site and removal all rubbish etc from the site. Stage 2: It is proposed that the site will be secured. Stage 3: The Protected Structures will be propped and sealed as per the Conservation Architects Protection Plan and under his supervlSion . The clients have appointed a contractor to carry out the site clearance and site security for the site they will begin . once we receive confirmation from yourselves that you are happy with what is being preposed. I have attached a site layout plan detailing the site security measures proposed for your approval. - I have also attached a letter ,which outlines the anticipated timefrarne forputting in place the abdve 3 stages, has been appointed as the Conservation Architect'for the project andwengineers have been appointed to assess the structural elements of the site and its Protected Structures, both parties met on site Monday, 26'? of August 2019. has also been in contact with Helena Bergin with respect to the detail required for the protection plan. I understand these discussions are on-golng and it is anticipated have the Protection Plan completed within the coming days. . I trust the attached is to your Satisfaction, my apologies again for the; delay in getting this information to you. We envisage now that as the various consultants have been appointed we should have the site secured and_protected within the coming weeks, subject to Fingai county Councils approval of'the details. I will be in touch as soon as I has the Protection Plan complete. . We would appreciate lt ifyou could review the site security measures attached-and come back to me with any feedback/comments. Many thanks, Gene Grif?n From: . . Sent: 18 September 2019 16:10 To: . Gene Grif?n? Subject: Re: Glenwood House Follow Up. Flag: . Follow up Flag Status: - Completed Hi Gene, It was lovely?to speak with you this morning, thank you for the call. As discussed I will speak to the client regarding the start date for Stage i and revert toyou with same. We will continue to progress the Protection Plan as discussed and will Issue to you in the coming days for review. From: Gene Grif?n Sent: 17 September 2019 18:36 To: - - - Subject: Glenwood House . -- Dear With respect to your letter dated 22"" August 2019 i wish to revert to you to discuss commencement and timelines with respect to Stage 1. The Council welcomes the measures outlined In the correspondence butjust to flag that measures may need to be taken ifthere? are any protected species e. bats and badgers) on the site to mitigate against impacting on them. The Council?s Conservation Of?cer welcomes the Clearing of debris from the site subject to supervision by the conservation accredited architect. Perhaps we cantake up-the discussion on the above later in the weekrl will make telephone contact. Regards Gene Grif?n Derelict Sites Section This email and any files transmitted with it are con?dential and may be legally privileged. It'is intended solely for the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, cepying, distributibn or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this - electronic message in error, please notify the sender orit semicedestfingaMe. Internet communications cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as 1 .. Helene Ber in Fm- - . Colin Gallagher Sent 19 Septernber 2019 14:50 To: Gene Grif?n; Helena Bergin; Martin Byme 50519?: - RE: Gienwood House . . - Hi Gene, I would prefer lfthey completed all the works in one go as this will minimise the chance of unauthorised entry into the building. There is unlikely to be unauthorised entry while the contractor" Is on site and if they complete all the works, the building should be left In a secure state Colin - From: Gene Grif?n Sent: 19 September 2019 11:25 To: Helene Bergin; Colin Gallagher; Martin Byrne Subject: Fwd: Glenwood House Sent ?ne: my Samsung Galaxy Cristina] messaee From: - Date: 19109/2019 11:23 GMT-l?Olizoo To: Gene Grif?n . Subject: RE: Glenwood House l-li Gene, Further to our correspondence yesterday please ?nd attached a copy of the revised layout for the Protection Plan campiied by In coniunctionWith ..onservation Architect Architects and 3 Protection Plan rep'ort corn plied by' have spoken to the client regarding the start date for Stage 1: Clearing the site. He has suggested that you might reviewthe attached and revert with comments prior to him beginning work on- -site. He would prefer to have a team on-site to complete all agreed works at the same/in tandem, he feels It might provide a quicker more ef?cient process. With respect to ecological concerns, as discussed, the client has appointed ecologist and Bat expert, to survey the site and compile a report of findings and mitigation measures, if required. We anticipate these reports will be ?nalised within the comlng weeks. We look forward to your comments on the attached at your earliest convenience. in the meantime,.lfyou need any further Information please ?do not hesitate to contact me on the number?below. Many thanks, From: Gene Grif?n Sent: 17 "September 2019 18:37 To: . --.- - Subject: Glenwood House - .- - - . Dear With respect to your letter dated 22"d August 205:9, [wish to revert to you to distu?ss commencement and timelines with respect to Stage -1. The Council welcomes the measures outlined In the correspondence but just to flag that measures may need to be taken ifthere are any protected speCies e. bats and badgers) on the site to mitigate against impacting on them. 1 The Council?s Conservation Of?cer welcomes the clearing of debris from the site subject to supervision by the conservation accredited architect. Perhaps we can take? up the discussion on the above later in the week. [will make telephone'contact. Regards . I - Gene Grif?n Derelict Sites Section This email and any files transmitted with it are con?dential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, any diSclOsure, copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken In reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this eieCtronic message in error, please notify the sender ?ori tserviggdeskg?ngatl le. ?Internet communications cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or A Gene Griffin - From: . Gene Grif?n Sent: 26 September 2019 11:54 To: - near on i refer to your previous correspondence and communication in terms of Glenwood House The Council IS satisfied with the schedule of works as set out in your Stage 1, Stage 2, Stage 3 proposals. Just a reminder: from our discussions that your conservation expert is mindful of any conservation material that may be found during stage 1 and stage 2 and to revert to Helena Bergin, Fingal County Council, Architectural Conservation Of?cer ifsarne is located. With reSpect to _Stage 3 ,your conservation expert Is to stay in communication with Helena during the stage 3 works. I understand that works are due to start in the next week or so. Please revert with the commencement date. 4 -, - 'H-w . . - 2.7:.1Jhn Regards Gene Grif?n . Administrative Of?cer Planning and Strategic infrastructure Helena Ber - in From: Gene rif?n Sent: 04 November 2019 16:14 To: Helena Bergin; Martin Byme Cc: Philip Long Subject: FW: Glenwood House Importance: Hig'h HelenaXMartin For info Can you attend with me? From: . Sent: 04 November 2019 12:02 To: Gene Grif?n Subject: Glenwood House Importance: High Good morning Gene, 1 spoke to this morning, he has advised that the contractor is appointed and is due to start this Wednesday/Thursday on site. He is to revert to me with an exact day/time. it has been suggested that we meet with the contractor on site this week to ensure he is fully briefed on what needs to happen. Would you or a representative from Fingal County Council like to attend this meeting on site? I will be in touch shortly with further details. Regards, SI 5. lenw Ho'u Present: (Sherborough Properties Limited), Owner Conservation Expert), Gene Grif?n Martin Byrne Both ch it was noted tidy up works on site were advancing and overgrowth from protected out of?ce buildings was been removed. It was noted site security works in terms of the site perimeter fencing - had not yet commenced but areas were being cleared to facilitate fencing. - It was agreed that the round shed would be secured rather than removed. Minor amendments to the overall protection plan forthe house itself were discussed and it was agreed that whilst these appeared to satisfactory, they would require further discussion between the owner conservation expert and the FCC ACO to agree same. - Site owner and site owner reps agreed to keep FCC appraised of progress and any issues or queries that may arise. FCC advised that follovlir?ng completion of the agreed works further site examination would take place toreview effectiveness of same and the Council reserved the right to request additional works From: Helena Bergin Sent: 11 November 2019 16:21 To: Jacqui Donnelly Subject: Glenwood House Jacqui, The live planning on this site is FW16N0158 for a Nursing Home that wasgranted on 1 Feb 2017. It~ subsequent application was submitted to extend the nursing home (Ref. FW17AI0160) which was refused. The Council have just agreed a protection plan for the'site to be carried out by the owner and their agents for security fencing to prevent unauthorised access. temporary roof for the house and propping of ?oors where required Regards, Helena Helena Bergin Architectural Conservation Of?cer (Sen Exec) - Comhalrie Chontae Fhlne Gall, Haila an Chontae, 56rd, Baile Arm Cliath, K67 X8Y2 Fingal County Council, County Hall, Main Street, Swords, Co. Dublin. K67 X8Y2 Email: 25:" 3? um: NM at! Helena Bergin- - . - From; Jacqui bonneiiy . Sent: . 11 November 2019 16:23 To: . Helena Bergin Subject . Glenwood House Glenwood House was recorded by the NIAH: search buildin 11360006 nwoo ous al it's quiet shocking to see how it has deteriorated since. Jacqui Donneiiy Senior Architect Built Heritage Policy An Roinn Cuit?ir, Oidhreachta agus Gaeltachta Dis-pertinent of Culture. Heritage and the Gaeltacht Custom House, Dublin, DU01 WBXO BTransfer: I over 0M .5: ?letra .ch v.ie .?iedro Ta an t-eolas sa riomhphost chomh maith le gach comhad at? cea ngaiite leis, agus i gcomhalr ds?ld an duine n6 an choraisa bhfuil s? dir'rthe air amhain. fhaigheann t0 an seo tri bhoti?m, cuir sc?al chugainn ag webmaster@chg.gov.ie. Ta an riomhphost sea ama sheice?il ag scanoir vireas agus?deairamh air so bhfuil s? gian. - The information in this email, and any attachments transmitted with It, are con?dential and are for the intended recipient oniy. if you receive this message in error, please notify us via webmaster@chg.gov.ie . This e-mail has been scan'ned'by a virus scanner and appears to "be clean. Helena Berain From: Jacquwonneuy? Sent: 11 November 2019 16:24 To: Helena Bergin Subject: RE: Gienwood HouSe Our emails crossed! Thanks for the reference. From: Helena Bergin Sent: Monday 11 November 2019 16:21 rouacquwonnenv? Subject: Glenwood House Jacqui, The live planning permission on this site is FW16A10158 for a Nursing Home that was granted on 1 Feb 2017. A subsequent application was submitted to extend the nursing home (Ref. which was refused. The Council havejust agreed a protection plan for the site to be carried out by the owner and their agents for security fencing to prevent unauthorised access, temporary roof for the house and propping of floors where required. Regards, Helena Helena Bergln Architectural Conservation Of?cer (Sen Exec) Comhalrle Chontae Fhine Gall, Halla an Chontae, 56rd. Baile Atha Cliath, K67 X8Y2 Fingal County Council, County Hall, Main Street, Swords, Co. Dublin. K67 XSYZ comhalnecwtae 25 ?33> but!? "an Council This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action takenor omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this electronic message in error, please notify the sender or Internet communications cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late' or incomplete. Therefore, we do not accept responsibility for any errors or omissions that are present in this message, or any attachment, that have arisen as a result of e-maii transmission. This message has been swept by Anti-Virus software. a?l Mating at Hail, Swords or: 943.39 Lemon ELM [3993 Present: Gene Grif?n FCC, A0, Derelict Sites Section), Helena Bergin Aco), Colm McCoy l=cc Senior Planner), Planningiwlanninsi. Site Owner, Conservation expert) Gene Griffin opened the meeting referencing most recent site meetingon 5.11.19 and the programme of works agreed at same. He noted that whilst a contractor was on site at that stage doing generaltidy up works, the site required attention at that stage and it was necessary to advance the works to compietion. Gene stated he noted activity on site on drive by inspection and that the fencing works to secure the site did not'seem?to be in place?yet. Photos submitted bqulannlz-lg'recently indicating scaffold and works in progress to the house itselfwere noted. lanning outlined that the works on site were advancing Welland it was expected that they would be 90% completed in the next fortnight or so. Further to recent 'site meeting it was agreed that the red corrugated shed would remain but would be secured against trespass by?way of concrete barrier works to the shed itself in' addition to the overall site perimeter fencing. Gene outlined-that it is felt thatlth'e agreed site works are significant in terms of dealing the matters of dereliction and matters relevant to the Sanitary Services Act; it was put to them that ifthe programme of works is not .COmpieted to the satisfaction of the local authority that statutory notices could issue und er relevant legislation and further inspections will take place by the iocal authority in this regard:- The Conservation Plans in terms of the Protected Structure buildings on site were_discussed. it was noted work is in progress and in accordance with the programme of works 'agreed. it was put to 4?that the FCC ACO is monitoring works and progress in this regard under the Planning and Development Act and would intelvene under this legislation if works were not completed to the satisfaction of the local authority. 7 itwas put forward by"- that the site owner is keen for further site meeting to take place. it was agreed that FCC would make contact with a proposed date and in the interim to keep FCC updated with progress of works and any issues that m'ay arise it was put to them that whilst the agreed programme of works appears to be satisfactory based on current assessment, FCC reserved the right to revert with further requests in future if further works are required in furore. The of the owner to secure the site and have measures in place to protect the protected structure was re-lteratedenquiry was' made with respect to any plans to commence on the' approved granted planning that there are no plans to submit a commencement notice On this permission and that a new planning permission'is under consideration and preparation. it was put to them that any such application would receive?conslderation-upon receipt of same 22