The URL in my request has become invalid, but the particular list mentioning this order is still available at <http://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/NR/rdon...>.

Interesting: they've rejected it as "manifestly unreasonable" on the basis of a cumulative series of requests, despite the EIR apparently having no repeated requests provisions. They've applied the same limits as FOI and carried across the same waiting period, too.

Would be interesting to know if "available for public inspection" really does count as "easily available". Perhaps someone from the other side of the country should make the request!

Paragraph 67 of <http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/d...> indicates that the Information Commissioner isn't in principle opposed the the aggregation of requests for 12(4)(b) purposes. In this case, though, the County have aggregated requests over a far longer period than FOIA would have allowed, which I doubt would meet with approval.

I haven't found any authority on whether something's being available for public inspection qualifies as "easy" under EIR 6(1)(b), though it would appear to be adequate under FOIA 21 if it's also in the authority's publication scheme.

Also, it seems they would charge £25/hour to let you see it:

http://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/council...

Quite apart from the issues around open access to government information, restricting access to things that amounts to legislation seems rather dubious.

Clause 8(2)(b) of EIR states:

8(2) A public authority shall not make any charge for allowing an applicant—
(b) to examine the information requested at the place which the public authority makes available for that examination.

http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/legResults....

The £25/hr doesn't (and therefore shouldn't) apply to environmental info...

The link I posted was to a page that is specifically about the EIR (check the sidebar on the left).

They've probably done some bad copy & pasting - the fee should probably be challenged with the authority, then the ICO.

I've emailed the Council reporting this mistake and also suggesting that they might like to update various links to point to their 2009 publication scheme rather than the 2003 one. I've separately asked if I can inspect this TRO and the other one that got refused, so I'll see if they try to charge in practice.

I visited Castle Court today and obtained a paper copy of this order, which is only three pages long. I'll scan it and put it on line with the rest.

A rough scan of the first two pages is now on line at <http://bjh21.me.uk/traffic/crmcrc.pdf>. I've omitted the map since I don't have a licence from the OS to copy it.

The Council still haven't removed the reference to a charge of £25/hr from their EIR Web page, so I've reminded them about it. If this doesn't help, I'll mention it to the ICO.