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

Dear Brent Borough Council,

It has become apparent that many organisations and members of the
public in LB Brent were not aware of the recent consultation into
the Draft Mayor of London Transport Strategy.

Please explain the steps that Brent Council took with TfL to make
the public aware of consultation into the Draft Mayor of London
Transport Strategy.

(1) What publicity was undertaken across LB Brent by TfL and by LB
Brent?

(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 Brent 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?

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

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

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

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

(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 Brent?
Has the council expressed concerns over this unfair and unbalanced
aspect of the consultation process?

(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?

(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?

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

(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?

(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?

Yours faithfully,

Ruthlyn Black

Dear Brent Borough Council,

I sent this FOI Request to you a week ago.

I am surprised that no acknowledgement has yet been received.

Could you kindly confirm that this request is in hand?

Yours faithfully,

Ruthlyn Black

Dear Stephen F Williams,

I would ask you to reconsider your decision.

In this case the information requested cannot lead to issues of
unauthorised re-use or breach of copyright.

I would note that no other London Borough has raised this issue.

Yours sincerely,

Ruthlyn Black

Dear Stephen F Williams,

I note you have not replied to my follow up query.

I adopt the words of another FOI Requester.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Could you kindly confirm whether you are going to provide the
Information asked for on this occasion to my WDTK email address?

If you refuse, I will refer this to the ICO for a Ruling.

I say you should provide the Information as requested.
You may include a Copyright Notice if you wish.

Publication of Information on a website if covered by a Copyright
Notice retains all the protection of copyright.

It is equivalent to a book or other publication, where copyright
protection is not lost by the fact of publication.

I say any concern you may have in general can be covered by a
statement such as that below, which was provided by Hounslow when
they provide WDTK with the Information in response to the same
request to them as I made to you.

I also say that you must provide the Information as requested, and
then take action should any breach of copyright subsequently occur.

I would point out that the ICO has already made a recent ruling in
these terms.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

"Most of the information that is provided in response to Freedom of
Information Act 2000 requests will be subject to copyright
protection. In most cases the copyright will be owned by The London
Borough of Hounslow. However, the copyright in other information
may be owned by another person or organisation, as indicated in the
information itself.

"You are free to use any information supplied for your own use,
including for non-commercial research purposes. The information may
also be used for the purposes of news reporting. However, any other
type of re-use, for example, by publishing the information, using
it for marketing purposes or issuing copies to the public will
require the permission of the copyright owner.

"For information where the copyright is owned by another person or
organisation, you must apply to the copyright owner to obtain their
permission."

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Yours sincerely,

Ruthlyn Black

Dear Williams, Stephenf,

Please send the information to this email address:
[email address]

The wider issue of Brent Council's attitude to WDTK will be
pursued.

Yours sincerely,

Ruthlyn Black

Dear Williams, Stephenf,

I note that the 20 working day deadline has passed without any
response being provided to my FOI Request.

This is very disappointing.

The Request was a straight forward one, and I see no reason why the
council could not provider its response within the statutory limit
of 20wd.

Please give an indication of a date by when the council expects to
provide its reply - as otherwise a reference to the ICO will become
necessary.

Yours sincerely,

Ruthlyn Black

Dear Williams, Stephenf,

You have supplied me via the alternative email address I provided
with a file with the name shown below

FoI575330.vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document

This is not a normal computer file, and does not have a normal
extension.
My computer cannot understand it.

Please provide a normal file, with a TXT or DOC extension.
Note DOCX is not readable by many computers including mine, so is
not acceptable.
As an alternative, a standard basic PDF file would be fine.

I would point out that in order to avoid discriminating against
people with older computer systems, you should use file formats as
far as possible which are widely available, and avoid using
software only accessible to those with the most modern software.

Yours sincerely,

Ruthlyn Black

Dear Williams, Stephenf,

Thank you for your reply.

Could you kindly provide a copy of the response that the council
sent in response to the MTS consultation?

Either a weblink to a copy of the actual response that was sent, or
a WORD DOC copy.

I would also be interested to see the relevant committee reports.
Perhaps you could provide a weblink to those items as well.

Yours sincerely,

Ruthlyn Black