Meltham Greenway extension plans II

Dear Sir/Madam,

I would like to make a request under the terms of the Freedom of
Information Act 2000 regarding information that Kirklees Borough
Council may hold relating to the Meltham Greenway cycleway. This
request follows on from a previous request I have made relating to
this subject in January of this year and is an attempt to more
specifically define the information being sought to make it more
feasible for the Council to provide a useful response.

I understand from an article in the Huddersfield Daily Examiner in
2004 (see [1]) that the Council commissioned Mouchel Parkman to
undertake a feasibility study regarding a cycleway from Meltham to
Huddersfield on the route of the former Meltham Branch Line.

Also, I understand from the Kirklees Capital Investment Plan (see
[2]) that there is no money in the 2010/2011 budget for Meltham
Greenway development work and only £246,000 in the budget for the
following three years.

I would ask that the Council:

1. Provides a copy of the full report relating to the feasibility
study
2. Provides details on how the £246k over three years in the
Capital Investment Plan is intended to be spent if that has been
planned at this stage

My preferred format to receive this information is by electronic
means.

I understand that under Section 16 of the Act public authorities
have a duty to provide advice and assistance to requesters and so
if it is necessary to clarify any details of my request or you find
this request to be unmanageable please contact me.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours faithfully,

Adam Brookes

[1] "Expert spotlight on plans for new cycleway",
http://www.examiner.co.uk/news/local-wes...
[2] Capital Investment Plan 2010-11 to 2015-16, page 20,
http://www.kirklees.gov.uk/you-kmc/kmcbu...

Dear Sir/Madam,

I write regarding my recent Freedom of Information request relating
to the Meltham Greenway which I made on 1 June 2010.

Section 10(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 requires
public authorities to comply with requests "promptly and in any
event not later than the twentieth working day following the date
of receipt".

It appears that Kirklees Borough Council has failed to meet this
requirement which is a breach of the Act. I therefore hope that a
full response will be provided very soon and would ask that I am
informed if the Council expects this delay to continue for much
longer.

Yours faithfully,

Adam Brookes

Dear Jenny Cartwright,

Thank you for your recent message providing the Council's response
to my Freedom of Information request relating to the Meltham
Greenway. I am grateful for your answer to my second point
regarding the Capital Investment Plan.

On my first point, your response includes that "It's not practical
to copy all this information." Can you confirm whether that part of
my request is being declined in accordance with Section 12 of the
Act, that the estimated cost of compliance exceeds appropriate
limit? If that is the case, could you advise what the estimated
cost of compliance is, how this has been arrived at, and whether my
request could be refined to come within the cost limit.

Could you also confirm in what format the Mouchel Parkman report
was provided to the Council? Does the Council only hold this in
hard copy?

Yours sincerely,

Adam Brookes

Dear Sir/Madam,

Thank you for your recent message regarding my FoI relating to the
Meltham Greenway. I am aware that the Freedom of Information Act
allows for public authorities to charge fees in certain
circumstances. I will await your response regarding a quote for
providing a copy of the requested information. Clearly this may
influence whether I decide to make an appointment with the Council
to view these documents, pay for a copy to be sent by post, or not
pursue this any further and perhaps consider a redefined FoI
request.

In my previous message I asked in relation to the Mouchel Parkman
feasibility study if the Council could confirm the format it holds
this information and whether it is only held in hard copy. In
response, the Council have said that "we are not in possession of a
hard copy of the conclusion report, but we will send you everything
we have". I would appreciate further clarification as to the
situation here. Is it the case that as part of the feasibility
study, Mouchel Parkman provided the Council with a number of
documents, of which the "conclusion report" was one which for
whatever reason the Council no longer holds but the Council does
still hold other documents produced by Mouchel Parkman for the
Council. What exactly does the Council hold relating to the Mouchel
Parkman feasibility study and in what format?

Yours faithfully,

Adam Brookes