Well quite - they have said that open parks will have night wardens which strikes me as significantly more expensive than having someone lock the gates.We’ll have to wait and see how much it costs in terms of inevitable abuse of the park’s infrastructure.
Plus the hall is nearing completion of refurbishment. Going to have to get decent security on that
Is there any more info on this? Do you know the reasoning?
They already do this in borough of CroydonLambeth have confirmed they're trialling not locking gates of some more parks, like Brockwell Park, from next month
Who runs this dreadful show?!
Sadly this is typical. Not just with Lambeth, many local authorities refuse to take their legal safeguarding obligations around domestic and familial abuse seriously. It's disgusting. However Lambeth currently seem to be particularly bad.Yet again:
A single mother fleeing domestic violence says she has been left in danger by a Southern Housing and Lambeth Council, which have both failed to permanently rehouse her ...
Domestic violence survivor ‘at risk’ from housing association and council’s failure to rehouse her
Interesting. I'm just starting an ICO case. I asked for raw data used to produce graphs shown in a consultation document. After six months they sent me back the same graphs themselves. I escalated the query and they have not responded since August, and they've not even registered it as escalated.Our dear Council is yet again in trouble for failing to comply with the Freedom of Information Act after once again refusing to answer a request for information properly.
The Information Commissioner made the ruling over a request for "usage and revenue figures" comparing the performance of Lambeth leisure centres under their former management, (Better), and their current in-house operator, (Active Lambeth). The Council claimed that it didn't hold some of the information and refused to release revenue figures, claiming "commercial confidentiality".
The Commissioner found the Council failed to comply with Sections 1 and 10(1) of FOIA, which require timely and adequate responses to requests. The Council didn't provide any detailed usage data as requested and it failed to justify its refusal to disclose revenue figures. It just gave generic reasons.
The Commissioner's ordered the Council to give the requested usage and revenue data within 30 calendar days. Failure to comply could result in contempt proceedings in the High Court.
The Council’s "internal review" process took nearly six months to complete and the Comissioner thought this was excessive and has told them to improve compliance with their FOI obligations.
View attachment 452540
Link here: https://ico.org.uk/media/action-weve-taken/decision-notices/2024/4031933/ic-295253-j9y9.pdf
To be fair, the CEO was probably high on crack for most of that time.Interesting. I'm just starting an ICO case. I asked for raw data used to produce graphs shown in a consultation document. After six months they sent me back the same graphs themselves. I escalated the query and they have not responded since August, and they've not even registered it as escalated.
Have you tried an FoI?I have been asking since it was brought in-house whether income from the leisure centres is ring fenced for the Leisure centres.
Been unable to get a straight answer on this.
I'm wondering if Council is using Leisure centres to raise income to put into the general pot.