19 July 2010

Dear Mr Figg

Request for Information Appeal Ref. iw10/7/13039 (Request Ref. iw10/5/35042)

Further to previous emails, I am now in a position to reply to your request for an internal review of your above referenced request for information that was logged on 29 June 2010.

Your request related to Blue Flag and Quality Coast Awards made in the Ryde/Seaview area during the past twelve months.

Specifically you requested:

Your complaint as to the handling of your request, relates to the statutory 20 working day timescale being exceeded, as well as information being withheld with respect to the 2^nd part of your request.

Your initial request was sent to the council on Saturday 22 May and was deemed to have been received on Monday 24 May, as being the first working day following receipt. A reply was sent to you, by email, on 11 June 2010. The reply was therefore sent on the 13^th working day. This reply included details of the relevant awards for Ryde/Springvale/Seagrove as well as details of expenditure on signs, including details of which budgets were used.

You sent an email on 14 June, requesting clarification as to whether the cost of the Blue Flag application was refunded for Ryde and whether the Quality Coast Award application for Ryde was also withdrawn and whether the cost of that application was refunded. In addition, you requested “why was a £50 water quality payment made at Springvale?”

You sent a further email on 15 June, requesting some further details specifically asking “whether or not an order was also placed for signage in relation to the amended ban area”, in relation to the proposed amendment to the Dog Control Orders at Ryde. At the time, both these emails were dealt with as requests for clarification, rather than a new request, or an appeal.

A further response, in reply to your emails dated 14 & 15 June, was sent to you on 7 July.

Having checked your correspondence, it seems that your email dated 14 June requested new information, as you did not previously request information concerning withdrawn applications, nor information relating to a Water Quality Payment. As such, this should have been treated as a new request for information. In accordance with the Freedom of Information Act, a reply should be sent within 20 working day, following receipt of the request. As a reply was sent on 7 July, this was within the statutory timescale, as being the 17^th working day, following receipt.

Your email dated 15 June, again, seems to be requesting new information, although you specifically requested `clarification'. As such, this should have been dealt with as a new request. A reply was sent on 7 July, being the 16^th working day following receipt, again within the statutory timescales.

With respect to your complaint that your request/s were not complied with within statutory timescales, I do not uphold your complaint.

I shall now consider your complaint that information was withheld concerning your request for details of orders placed for signs relating to dogs on beaches in the Ryde/Seaview area, whether or not the order was subsequently cancelled. I note that no exemption has been claimed.

The initial reply included the following details:

The three triangular signs were purchased in 2008 at a cost of £1365 each. For your information the expenditure for these signs came from Public Realm Improvement funds and not the department's annual budget. The Public Realm Improvement budget was a one-off budget allocated for a range of improvements as part of the council's One Island improvement programme.

In relation to signs and stickers attributing solely to the dog exclusion zones, information on costs or cancellation costs by town is not available. Costs are attributed to the Isle of Wight total only.

Further information was provided by email dated 7 July, in response to your email dated 15 June:

12 large signs @ £38 ea = £456.00

4 small signs @ £20 ea = £80

plus 1 sheet of stickers @ £2

Total cost = £538

Note - These were implemented solely for the amendment made to the Dog Exclusion Order.

No cancellations made were at any cost to the Local Authority

You have stated that you “have not had a full answer as you have not stated whether a cancellation was made which related to no cost to the authority”. I have checked with colleagues, who have clarified the situation with regards to the signs. The council holds no information relating to `cancellations', as such. An initial `order' was made verbally, to indicate the number of signs required. This was followed up by a final order being made, confirming the number of signs required. The final order included fewer signs than the initial number given verbally, but there was no cost implications with regards to this. As the council holds no information relating to `cancellations', I do not uphold your complaint that information was withheld.

I trust this reply satisfies your request/appeal. However, if you are at all dissatisfied with the way in which the council has dealt with your request, and appeal, you have the right of further appeal to the Information Commissioners Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF.(www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk).

Yours sincerely

Vanda Niemiec (Miss)

Information Manager

Encs.