Information on MPS sites and facilities
Freedom of information request reference no: 01.FOI.23.028983
I note you seek access to the following information:
The Met Police has published a list of police stations, however this does not include patrol bases.
1. Please return, ideally in the form of an Excel file, a list of all Met Police sites, redacted as nesscacery. I would note that while obviously redacting safe houses or other covert sites, I will appeal and follow up on a lack of disclose of, for example, a patrol base, data centre, or office complex. I think a fair test would be "would a police officer enter the facility in uniform without a pretext for doing so".
Please include:
(a). Internal name("Warspite Road")
(b). Purpose (patrol base, police station, etc)
(c). Unit(s) with ownership of or basing out of there("zx BCU" "MO7 territorial support group")
(d). As many measures of size (indoor floor area, total area(incl open spaces), (e)number of desks, (f)custody places, (g)number of car parking spaces, (h)number of rooms, etc) as are accessible without individual searches(for example are in a database or software tool).
(i). Lists of facilities at the site, redacted as nesscacery ("custody suite", "forensics lab", "IT facilities")
Decision
I have today decided to disclose some of the requested information. Some data has been withheld as it is exempt from disclosure and therefore this response serves as a Refusal Notice under Section 17 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) by virtue of the following exemptions:
Section 21 - Information accessible by other means
Section 31(1)(a) - Law enforcement
Reason for decision
I have today decided to disclose some of the requested information for Question One (a), (b), (e), (f), (g), (i).
Information pertinent to;
• Question 1 (Covert/Sensitive site List and Data Centre list)
• Question 1(b) (Purpose) other than information disclosed today
• Question 1(c) (Unit(s) with ownership of or basing out of there) other than information already accessible on our website
• Question 1(d) (as many measures of size (indoor floor area, total area(incl open spaces)
• Question 1(e) number of desks per site
• Question 1(g) number of car parking spaces per site
• Question 1(h) number of rooms
• Question 1(i). Lists of facilities at the site, redacted as nesscacery ("custody suite", "forensics lab", "IT facilities") other than that within Facility Front Counter List and Estate List disclosed today
In respect of Question One (c) (Units with ownership of or being based out of there), unit or team details with locations are usually placed on the website should the public need to be made aware of their role and location. Section 21 will therefore apply to information already in the public domain. For example Neighbourhood policing will often list the actual name of Stations, Contact Points and Offices covering an area/ Borough, so the public can easily liaise with them in regard to local issues via the link below;
https://www.met.police.uk/area/your-area/
In terms of Question 1(a) (Internal Name) providing an ‘Internal name’, the MPS has provided the name of the property referred to by central Property Services Directorate (PSD) who hold the central information requested. There is always the possibility that local staff/occupants may refer to sites/ premises with slightly different or abbreviated names, but the MPs is only required to provide recorded information to answer a request, which will be the formal name of the premises on our central system.
Section 31(1)(a) (Law enforcement) - Full disclosure provides MPS security, resources and facilities data into the public domain. If disclosed, this can be used as intelligence against MPS staff and the public to carry out criminal activity, following an adverse FOIA disclosure on our MPS Publication Scheme. All FOIA disclosures are published on the FOIA disclosure log for anyone in the world to view.
Full disclosure would lead to a loss of confidence in the MPS’ ability to protect the physical health, wellbeing and safety of the community we serve, which includes protecting its police officers/staff from attacks in the workplace (for example, when due to an adverse FOIA disclosure regarding resource and facility specifications).
In terms of any possible covert/sensitive related estate or data centres, to disclose any number of locations held, not held or property recorded would increase the chance of the MPS being specifically targeted and damaged. This would obviously undermine operational policing and the ability to respond to incidents, especially if it increases the chance of causing networks to go down, data to be was lost/stolen or individuals to be subject to attack.
In terms of Question 1(b), (Purpose (patrol base, police station), while disclosure of the premises defined as, for example, a police station in the public domain or within the title of the premises where its purpose is made clear then there has been no considered concern with disclosure. Such information has been disclosed today. However, creating (albeit FOIA does not require us to create new lists), publishing and defining the purpose of all premises in specific terms in greater detail would be harmful.
This is because it could provide information for individuals or groups with criminal intent to disrupt the forces ability to deploy resources safety and it could compromise law enforcement. Providing the purpose could also reveal operational and tactical capabilities of the MPS as well as compromise the security of buildings.
Highlighting the operational purpose of premises also gives criminals information on which buildings have potential weaknesses for them to exploit, as it provides possible resources and capabilities. This could leave buildings open to attack, or enable the criminals to develop tactics to combat known response capability. When out in the context of all the other resource information you seek to know about a specific site, there is clear concern about such a disclosure and the risk this request has on the public and police staff.
In terms of Question One(c) (Units with ownership of or basing out of there) and Question One (i) List of facilities, i.e. Forensic Lab) it would be harmful to disclose information not already in the public domain for this question. It would be remiss for the MPS to provide a list of units and facilities based in any given building, especially specialist units. Enabling the public to make contact with their local Safer Neighbourhood policing Team in a localised area is in the public interest, but making public where specialised units are based would enable a hostile organisation to target or block response from those sites.
Whilst the locations of police buildings are in the public domain, we do not release the nature of the functions or teams that reside in any given building outside of the Front Counter services and Custody suites. Persons with hostile intent could use information to either compromise or interfere with the police response ability.
Additionally this knowledge could cause specific sites to become higher value targets and be subject to increased risk of criminal or terrorist threats. Therefore this information is not suitable for disclosure.
In respect of Team details with locations, these are usually placed on the website should the public need to be made aware of their role and location. Section 21 will therefore apply to information already in the public domain. For example Neighbourhood policing will often list the actual name of Stations, Contact Points and Offices covering an area/ Borough, so the public can easily liaise with them in regard to local issues via the link below;
https://www.met.police.uk/area/your-area/
In terms of Question 1(d) (as many measures of size (indoor floor area, total area(incl open spaces) and Question 1(h) (number of rooms) disclosure of individual site details could indicate the level of response that could be expected from any given site should an attack or threat to a building occur.
This granular level detail required for each premises constitutes a security risk to law enforcement as it can be treated as intelligence to assist criminals if they wanted to target the premises. Disclosure of sizes of open areas, number of rooms are details that someone may use if they wanted to plan an attack or use a specific type of device.
The same harm applies in terms of Question 1(e) (number of desks) and Question 1(g) (number of car parking spaces) per site. We have met the public interest today by disclosing total figures for desks and car spaces across the whole MPS estate.
In respect of Question 1(i) (Lists of facilities at the site), the MPS is only able to disclose the publicly accassible ‘Facility Front Counter List’ and ‘Estate List’ to you today to meet the public interest. Any further information is harmful for the same reasons as given above, such as for Unit details, for Question 1(c). Identifying where given facilities are located would compromise our ability to police effectively. Releasing all Forensics locations could compromise our ability to test evidence if a disclosure regarding locations were made causing the area to be at increased risk of subversive activity.
A general facilities list would not be given as this would highlight any possibly perceived vulnerabilities of each premises. For example, one location is listed as having a data centre or an IT facility, then the harm has already been outlined and the risk of this information being used to gain criminal intelligence is raised.
The risks to individuals are likely to be significant if the full information is used by those with the necessary criminal intent to undermine the very purpose for which it is held (crime prevention and detection).
Disclosure may lead to the unlawful targeting of police staff and officers who are carrying out their duty, which is not in the public interest.
Extra security measures and policing resources may need to be put into place with the disclosure of the full information. This is because of the risk disclosure brings in that it could be used as intelligence by those with the necessary criminal intent to undermine the safety of employees who undertake policing duties in local areas.
The strongest reason favouring disclosure is increasing public knowledge of the use of public funds.
The strongest reason favouring non-disclosure is to not undermine law enforcement capabilities by increasing the risk to individuals working on behalf of the MPS, London and wider with an adverse disclosure.
On weighing up the competing interests I have determined that the disclosure of the full information would not be in the public interest. I consider that the benefit that would result from the information being disclosed does not outweigh the considerations favouring non-disclosure.
The information disclosed today ensures the public interest is met without placing law enforcement and the safety and security of MPS employees, in harm’s way.
I appreciate this is not the decision you would have liked for this part of your request. However this decision has been made on the understanding that the public interest is not what interests the public but is what would be of greater interest to the public as a whole, should the information be disclosed.
Disclosure
The MPS refers you to the following link to a previous disclosure (FOIA Case Reference: 22/025985) for a list of police stations where front counters are open and closed.
A List of Police Stations where Front Counters are Open or Closed
As this was a disclosure in 2022, the MPS appreciates information will have changed since that time. Therefore rather than relying on a Section 21 exemption (where Information is Reasonably Accessible by other means) and referring you to previous FOIA disclosure, the MPS has been working to retrieve and disclose the most up to date information possible so a partial disclosure can be sent to you today.
In respect of Question One (1), the MPS is today able to provide you with an up to date Estate List Police Sites and Facility Front Counter List which includes details of their permanent Front Counter Status where relevant.
In terms of Covert/sensitive estate and confirming the location/numbers of data centres to which you refer, this information is exempt from disclosure by virtue of the Section 31(1)(a) Law Enforcement exemption.
In terms of Question 1(a) (Internal Name) providing an ‘Internal name’, the MPS has provided the name of the property referred to by central Property Services Directorate (PSD) who hold the central information requested. There is always the possibility that local staff/occupants may refer to sites/ premises with slightly different or abbreviated names, but the MPS is only required to provide recorded information to answer a request, which will be the formal name of the premises on our central system.
In terms of Question 1(b) (Purpose), the MPS has provided the reference recorded in central PSD for each property, where the property is referred to, for example, a Police Station or Learning Centre. The MPS is not required to create new information to answer a FOIA request in terms of ‘naming’ its purpose to suit an FOIA request. There is no other central ‘Purpose list’ connected to sites to which we can refer to answer this part of your request. In terms of ‘recorded information’ the MPS will usually just categorise sites as ‘Operational Policing Sites’.
In respect of Question 1(e) (number of desks), the MPS has approximately 32800 desks recorded across our whole estate. This is subject to change, depending on usage and movement of units within buildings.
In respect of Question 1(f) (custody places), the MPS can confirm they have 602 cells available 24/7, give or take those out for repair or deep clean, or maintenance work at the site at any given time. The MPS then have 8 suites, known as contingency suites with 139 cells for any surge demand. All of these number are subject to repairs and building works at any given time, impacting on the availability.
In respect of Question 1(g) (number of car parking spaces), the MPS have in the region of 6800 parking spaces recorded across the whole MPS estate. This is subject to change, depending on usage of parking and yard areas.
In respect of Question 1(i) (Lists of facilities at the site, redacted as nesscacery ("custody suite", "forensics lab", "IT facilities"), the MPS is able to disclose the publicly accassible ‘Estate List’ and ‘Facility Front Counter List’ to you today. Any further granular information is exempt by virtue of Section 31(1)(a) Law Enforcement).