Mayor of London Transport Strategy - Consultation Process - How many aware within LB Lewisham?

Dear Ms Black

Re: Freedom of Information Act 2000

Reference No: 91799

Thank you for your recent request.

Your request is being considered and you will receive a response within the statutory timescale of 20 working days, subject to the application of any exemptions. Where consideration is being given to exemptions the 20 working day timescale may be extended to a period considered reasonable depending on the nature and circumstances of your request. In such cases you will be notified and, where possible, a revised time-scale will be indicated. In all cases we shall attempt to deal with your request at the earliest opportunity.

There may be a fee payable for the retrieval, collation and provision of the information requested where the request exceeds the statutory limit or where disbursements exceed £10. In such cases you will be informed in writing and your request will be suspended until we receive payment from you or your request is modified and/or reduced.

Your request may require either full or partial transfer to another public authority. You will be informed if your request is transferred.

If we are unable to provide you with the information requested we will notify you of this together with the reason(s) why and details of how you may appeal (if appropriate).

Please note that the directorate team may contact you for further information where we believe that the request is not significantly clear for us to respond fully.

Kind regards

Maria Kaminski
Corporate Information Governance Team
0208 314 9928

show quoted sections

Dear Ms Black,

Re: Freedom of Information Act 2000

Reference No: 91799

Thank you for your recent request. We are pleased to enclose the
following information.

General: Consultation by London Mayor not LBL.

(1) What publicity was undertaken across LB Lewisham by TfL and by LB
Lewisham?
None by LBL.

(2) What was published that explained the Draft Strategy and the
consultation process and how were these made available?
None by LBL.

(3) What steps were taken to try to ensure a balanced cross-section of the
public was made aware of the process?
None by LBL.

(4) Where were leaflets distributed, and how was this decided? What
analysis suggested this would lead to a fair and balanced
distribution across the community?
None by LBL.

(5) What steps were taken to ensure that hard-to-reach sections of the
community, such as those who travel exclusively by private car,
were made aware of the consultation process and encouraged to
participate in it?
None by LBL.

(6) What consultation discussions took place between LB Lewisham and TfL
over how this process would operate?
To what extent was the council consulted over the detail of the
consultation, and what views did it express?
None by LBL.

(7) Is the council happy with the consultation process? Was the council
happy that the online questionnaire was so
flagrantly biased? Was the council happy that were responders allowed
to pick as many as they chose from an uncosted wish-list?
The requested information is not held.

(7) What steps were taken to inform and involve organisations likely to
have an interest?
None by LBL.

(8) What programme of meetings was organised? Did Lewisham Council ask TfL
to attend meetings of the council's Neighbourhood Partnerships, and how
many did receive reports on the consultation from TfL?
None by LBL.

(9) How many meetings took place within LB Lewisham between TfL and the
council as part of the consultation process?
What about with local groups in LB Lewisham?
None.

(10) What pre-consultation took place with interested parties to ensure
that the process was fair and balanced?
None by LBL.

(11) Does the council support a MTS consultation on the Draft Mayor of
London Transport Strategy that offers so little for the driver -
private motorist or professional driver of taxi, minicab, van, lorry
or bus?
How important are private drivers in the overall use of transport in
Lewisham?
Has the council expressed concerns over this unfair and unbalanced
aspect of the consultation process?
The requested information is not held.

(12) Does the council support a MTS in which the promotion of cycling
within the draft MTS does not also include warnings on the
dangers of this mode? Does the council support the proposition that
a mass switch to cycling would be beneficial justified, and on what
evidence?
The requested information is not held.

(13) Does the council support a MTS consultation in which costings of
various suggestions were not put forward, so that the public
could see how much tax each would entail?
The requested information is not held.

(14) Does the council support a MTS consultation in which there was no
question on the level of subsidy that each mode should receive?
The requested information is not held.

(15) Does the council support a MTS consultation in which no question is
asked as to whether the users of a mode should bear
all, most, some or whatever proportion of the costs of providing
that mode?
The requested information is not held.

(16) What representations has or will the council make regarding the
consultation process into the Draft MTS as a result of this
enquiry or otherwise?
The requested information is not held.

Please note that we are not obliged to provide information which is not
held at the time of receipt of a request i.e. providing comments which
have previously not been recorded.

We hope you will find this information helpful.

You have a right of appeal against this response. If you wish to appeal
you must do so in writing to the Corporate Information Manager at the
following address:
Corporate Information Governance Team
London Borough of Lewisham
Main Room, 2nd Floor
Town Hall, Catford Road
London, SE6 4RU
or
[email address]

Kind Regards

Karina O'Neill
Corporate Information Governance Team
0208 314 9928

show quoted sections

I am out of the office until Monday 08 February.

If you have any urgent enquiries please contact Georgina Chambers, Corporate Information and Records Manager - [email address]

Kind regards

Karina O'Neill
Corporate Information Governance Team
0208 314 9928

Dear Ms Black,

We have already responded to the specific request in your email of 07 February as per our response on the 04 February;
(6) What consultation discussions took place between LB Lewisham and TfL over how this process would operate? To what extent was the council consulted over the detail of the consultation, and what views did it express?
None by LBL.

Your previous request, reference number 91799 related to the Mayor of London Transport Strategy, Consultation Process.

Kind regards

Karina O'Neill
Corporate Information Governance Team
0208 314 9928

show quoted sections

Dear Ms Black,

Thank you for your email. We are processing your appeal to our response to your information request (reference number 91799). We will endeavour to respond to you again within 20 working days of receipt of your appeal.

Kind regards

Karina O'Neill
Corporate Information Governance Team
0208 314 9928

show quoted sections

Dear Ms Black,

Re: Freedom of Information Act 2000, Response to Appeal

Reference No: 91799

We have now considered your appeal (email sent 12 February 2010) of
our original full response to you. In summary, we confirm that we uphold
our original response to you and that you have already been provided with
all of the relevant information which is held relating to request
reference number 91799.

Your original request regarding the MTS consultation was for:
(1) What publicity was undertaken across LB Lewisham by TfL and by LB
Lewisham?

(2) What was published that explained the Draft Strategy and the
consultation process and how were these made available?

(3) What steps were taken to try to ensure a balanced cross-section of the
public was made aware of the process?

(4) Where were leaflets distributed, and how was this decided? What
analysis suggested this would lead to a fair and balanced distribution
across the community?

(5) What steps were taken to ensure that hard-to-reach sections of the
community, such as those who travel exclusively by private car, were made
aware of the consultation process and encouraged to participate in it?

(6) What consultation discussions took place between LB Lewisham and TfL
over how this process would operate? To what extent was the council
consulted over the detail of the consultation, and what views did it
express?

(7) Is the council happy with the consultation process? Was the council
happy that the online questionnaire was so flagrantly biased? Was the
council happy that were responders allowed to pick as many as they chose
from an uncosted wish-list?

(8) What steps were taken to inform and involve organisations likely to
have an interest?

(9) What programme of meetings was organised? Did Lewisham Council ask TfL
to attend meetings of the council's Neighbourhood Partnerships, and how
many did receive reports on the consultation from TfL?

(10) How many meetings took place within LB Lewisham between TfL and the
council as part of the consultation process? What about with local groups
in LB Lewisham?

(11) What pre-consultation took place with interested parties to ensure
that the process was fair and balanced?

(12) Does the council support a MTS consultation on the Draft Mayor of
London Transport Strategy that offers so little for the driver - private
motorist or professional driver of taxi, minicab, van, lorry or bus? How
important are private drivers in the overall use of transport in Lewisham?
Has the council expressed concerns over this unfair and unbalanced aspect
of the consultation process?

(13) Does the council support a MTS in which the promotion of cycling
within the draft MTS does not also include warnings on the dangers of this
mode? Does the council support the proposition that a mass switch to
cycling would be beneficial justified, and on what evidence?

(14) Does the council support a MTS consultation in which costings of
various suggestions were not put forward, so that the public could see how
much tax each would entail?

(15) Does the council support a MTS consultation in which there was no
question on the level of subsidy that each mode should receive?

(16) Does the council support a MTS consultation in which no question is
asked as to whether the users of a mode should bear all, most, some or
whatever proportion of the costs of providing that mode?

(17) What representations has or will the council make regarding the
consultation process into the Draft MTS as a result of this enquiry or
otherwise?

We answered `none' to questions 1 to 6, 8 to 11. We answered `information
not held' for questions 7, 12 to 17. Please note that we are not obliged
to provide information which is not held at the time of receipt of a
request i.e. providing comments which have previously not been recorded.
We consider that we have responded fully to all of your 17 specific
requests within our original response. We have not made any responses to
the MTS consultation as outlined in your request.

The Information Commissioner's Office offers guidance on determining if
information is held or not at the following link:
[1]http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/l...

We consider that the requested information is not held because:

1. The requested information is not held in the form of a list or
schedule;
2. Compiling the requested information does not involve a simple manual
manipulation of information held in files;
3. The requested information cannot be extracted from an electronic
database by searching it in the form of a query.

We hope that you find this response satisfactory. You have a further right
of appeal against this decision, which you can do so in writing, stating
your reasons to the regulating body, the Information Commissioner's
Office. Contact details: [2]http://www.ico.gov.uk/ or 08456 30 60 60
or Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF.

Yours sincerely

Mark Pybus
Information Governance Manager

DISCLAIMER

This message is confidential and intended solely for the use of the
individual or entity it is addressed to. If you have received it in
error, please contact the sender and delete the e-mail. Please note
that we may monitor and check emails to safeguard the Council network
from viruses, hoax messages or other abuse of the Councilâ**s systems.
To see the full version of this disclaimer please visit the following
address: http://www.lewisham.gov.uk/AboutThisSite...

For advice and assistance about online security and protection from
internet threats visit the "Get Safe Online" website at
http://www.getsafeonline.org

References

Visible links
1. http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/l...
2. http://www.ico.gov.uk/

I am currently out of the office. For any urgent enquiries please contact [email address]