Dear Buckinghamshire Council,

These requests concern the ongoing Westhorpe Interchange project, near Marlow:

a) Please provide copies of any safety audits that have been completed, together with their completion dates. If no safety audit has been completed as yet, then please confirm that this is the case.

b) Please specify the names of the 'overseeing organisations' and the 'independent auditors' (the latter being part of the formal safety audit process). These phrases are from a letter from Councillor Broadbent dated July 26th (ref MPE-27181).

c) Please provide details of the type of vehicle restraint barrier to be included along the section of footway which will be adjacent to turning vehicles. Please also specify the level of impact protection that it is envisaged that this barrier will provide. This barrier has been mentioned in correspondence ref MPE-27181.

d) Please provide the date of the decision to change the project scope from (i) the text in the public consultation (stated below), to (ii) the text in the correspondence ref MPE-27181 (stated below). Please also advise who made this decision and provide the minutes of the meeting at which this was agreed.

(i) Text in the public consultation:
The aim of this work is to improve peak time access to and from Globe Business Park (GBP) by putting in place integrated measures that will enable traffic movements to operate with greater efficiency. Congestion on this busy interchange is not only an issue for people working on GBP - but for local traffic too.

(ii) Text in correspondence ref MPE-27181:
The scheme's objectives are:
Improve the performance of the A404 (reduce queuing traffic on the northbound exit slip road extending back on to the A404).
Improve the ingress of traffic off the northbound exit slip road into Parkway.
Improve the occupancy rate at Globe Business Park

Thank you for your time and I hope to hear from you soon

Yours faithfully,

Ms Elliott

Dear Buckinghamshire Council,

Ref: case reference number: FOI 31772
I understandfrom Whatdotheyknow.com that I should have received a reply to my FOI request by end of the working day of 12th Jan 2022. As that time has now passed, I am sending this prompting email with the request that the reply is made early tomorrow (13th January)

Yours faithfully,

Ms Elliott

Dear Buckinghamshire Council,

Thank you for your response - much appreciated.
I note that you have sent me the 'Westhorpe Interchange Marlow RSA1 Response Report FINAL', dated 18/8/21. This is very interesting.
However, my request was for any safety audits that have been completed on this project. The document provided mentions the actual Stage 1 RSA (referenced 46433/2029/001 and dated 28th June 2021) on page 3. While I appreciate that the Response Report you have sent probably covers all the points on the RSA1, I would nevertheless like to also have a copy of the original RSA1, which is covered by my request. Thank you.

Yours faithfully,

Ms Elliott

Dear Freedom of Information,

I note you have suggested a response time of '11th February'. However, the actual RSA1 should have been part of the original response (due 12th January) as the request was for 'copies of any safety audits that have been completed, together with their completion dates'.

Please would you send me a copy of the Stage 1 RSA (referenced 46433/2029/001 and dated 28th June 2021) as soon as possible, given it should have already been sent by now.

Yours sincerely,

Ms Elliott

Dear Buckinghamshire Council,

Thank you for your reply, in which you state:

'The report referred to in your follow up request is considered to be
incomplete and was therefore not supplied as part of your original
request. However, we are now considering your request for a copy but we
will need more time to respond. Please accept my apologies. We will now
try to respond to you by 17 February 2022. '

Just a few points:
1. The Road Safety Audit 1 is an actual safety audit and therefore isn't part of a 'follow-up request', but part of the original request for 'any safety audits that have been completed, together with their completion dates'. Therefore it should actually have been included in the response sent on 13th January.
2. The RSA1 is a complete document in its own right - rather than an incomplete item.
3. I do appreciate your sending of the Westhorpe Interchange Marlow RSA1 Response Report FINAL Redacted Names 2.pdf on 13th January.

I understand you may now need a few extra days to obtain the RSA1. When you contact the Westhorpe Interchange project team, I would be grateful if you would also request copies of the WCHAR documents that I have asked for via a separate FOI request to Buckinghamshire Council on 10th Feb. The Head of Highways has been aware of a non-FOI request for the WCHAR document(s) for just over two weeks, so I hope this separate WCHAR FOI request can be responded to well before the statutory 20 working days timeline.

Yours sincerely,

Ms Elliott

Dear Buckinghamshire Council,

I am disappointed that you have so far been unable to provide the Westhorpe Stage 1 Road Safety Audit.

The Council claims that this Stage 1 Road Safety Audit an 'incomplete document' - however Stantec was commissioned to complete this document and they were presumably paid, so it is reasonable to assume that the Stage 1 Road Safety Audit is complete for its scope. Stantec have referenced the Stage 1 Road Safety Audit as 46433/2029/001 and I think it is unlikely they would do this for an incomplete document.
The fact that the Stage 1 Road Safety Audit feeds into a Council process, the output of which for the Council is the RSA Response Report, does not change the fact that the Stage 1 Road Safety Audit is a complete document in its own right. Therefore this 'incomplete document' argument does not appear to be valid.

I have seen a Road Safety Audit for a previous Council development and therefore know what is expected at this stage.

The Council claims that the Stage 1 Road Safety Audit has been 'superseded' by the Westhorpe Interchange Marlow RSA1 Response Report. However, the Road Safety Audit is a 'specialist process that must be carried out independently of design and construction work' ( https://www.tmsconsultancy.co.uk/audits/... ), and while it feeds into the subsequent decision-making processes by the Council/designer, the inherent independence of the Stage 1 Road Safety Audit means it cannot be directly replaced by documents that have included modifications from the Client.

The fact that the independence of the Road Safety Audit is critical to the safety process is an aspect which the Cabinet Member, Transport has highlighted when seeking to reassure concerned residents about the safety of the Westhorpe project. For example, in a letter dated 26th July 2021 (ref MPE-27181) he stated that all elements of the design would take into account the 'recommendations identified by independent auditors'. It is these recommendations that are in the Stage 1 Road Safety Audit that is being requested. Therefore the 'superseded' argument does not appear to be valid.

The Council claims that the Stage 1 Road Safety Audit 'does not form part of the formal road safety audit process'. However, this is in direct contradiction of the letter from the Cabinet Member, Transport (referenced above), which states that all elements of the design would take into account the 'recommendations identified by independent auditors as part of the formal road safety audit process.' In addition, the Westhorpe Interchange Marlow RSA1 Response Report, clearly states that it is using data from the Stage 1 Road Safety Audit (referenced 46433/2029/001 and dated 28th June 2021), which is the document being requested. This 'not part of the process' argument therefore does not appear to be valid.

You say that the public interest in witholding is:

- 'that the information is incomplete'. This argument is challenged in the first paragraph above: the completed Stage 1 Road Safety Audit by Stantec is a complete document in its own right.
- 'that it would require a disproportional effort to provide an explanation' if the document was released. This is concerning as it implies that there is something in the Stage 1 Road Safety Audit that the Council does not wish to be available for public scrutiny. This definitely should not be the basis for withholding a document.
- to avoid 'hindering and distracting officers' from completing the unfinished/incomplete information. However, the Stage 1 Road Safety Audit has been completed by Stantec, so there is no further work for the officers to do before releasing the document.
- that there may be 'inaccurate information' in the document. This is doubtful, as Stantec is a reputable company, and if any inaccurate information has been provided I am sure Stantec would be the first to wish it to be corrected. If the Council is convinced that there are inaccuracies, then the document could be released with a note stating which parts are considered to be inaccurate.
- that the Stage 1 Road Safety Audit has not been 'concluded, has not been relied on'. This is incorrect as the Stage 1 Road Safety Audit is a complete document and has been used to produce the Westhorpe Interchange Marlow RSA1 Response Report.

Therefore the claims about the public interest in withholding the document do not appear to be valid.

You state that 'the Council has worked to make a great deal of information available regarding this matter' - which is great news. The reason that FOI requests about the Westhorpe project have had to be made over the last few years is that Buckinghamshire Council have not made the information publicly available. The online meeting on the 27th January was interesting, but very little actual information was available - reference to draft answers were made but the content couldn't be divulged as a critical meeting hadn't occurred at that point. The Council has committed to giving written answers by the end of February to all bar one of the questions raised, and to all of them by end of March. For information, the 'substantive nine page list of further questions' that you mention is actually 5 pages of background information, 2 pages of Westhorpe questions for the meeting on the 27th January, 1 page of general active travel questions and 1 summary page of the information requests to the Council that have gone unanswered. I and others put work into the background information for the 27th January meeting in order to help Councillors who were not familiar with the project. The Council must have found the document useful as they displayed it on the screen during the meeting and at least one Councillor asked for the document to be emailed to them.

At this point I think my only formal option is to ask for an internal review of your decision. I do not wish to take up Council time unnecessarily, so I hope that when you have read my submissions above you will decide to release the Stage 1 Road Safety Audit (referenced 46433/2029/001 and dated 28th June 2021) forthwith.

Yours faithfully,

Ms Elliott

Dear Buckinghamshire Council,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Buckinghamshire Council's handling of my FOI request 'Westhorpe Interchange changes: safety and scope information requests'.

Thank you for your acknowledgement on 2/3/22, and the comment that you think I have requested a review and you will get back to me by 25th March. Just to be clear, I was asking you to look through my submission of 27th Feb, which explains why I believe your comments of 17th Feb are not valid reasons for withholding the document requested. I had hoped that you would come to the conclusion that the document requested should be released and that I would not need to request a formal internal review. I feel the use of the word 'review' in your reply is a bit ambiguous, and obviously the document has not yet been released. For clarity therefore, I wish to state that I am now asking for a formal internal review of the handling of this request.

The details of why I believe the arguments for not releasing the document are invalid are in my submission of 27th Feb. It is important that this safety audit, which should have been produced independently of the design and construction work, is available for public scrutiny.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/w...

Yours faithfully,

Ms Elliott

Dear Buckinghamshire Council,

It is disappointing that the RSA1 Safety Audit (dated 28/6/21) for the Westhorpe Interchange project has not yet been released.

I have sent the following to the ICO as suggested by Whatdotheyknow.com and requested that the RSA1 Safety Audit is released.

The internal review is incorrect in asserting that the RSA1 Safety Audit and the RSA1 Response Report are the same thing. The RSA1 Safety Audit is completed by an independent ‘Road safety audit team’ who are ‘a team that works together on all aspects of the road safety audit, independent of the highway scheme conception, design, construction and operation.’ (see page 10 of https://www.standardsforhighways.co.uk/p...). This team are tasked with considering the safety of the proposals, and in particular the impact on vulnerable users of the infrastructure. The RSA1 Response Report is a document produced after the Design team and Overseeing organisations (here Buckinghamshire Council and National Highways) have considered what they want to do to address the points raised by the Road safety audit team in the RSA1 Safety Audit. Page 18 of the document referenced above gives the steps for producing the two separate reports.

Since the response from the Bucks internal review, I have been trying to understand the reasons for a) the Council’s statement that the independent RSA1 Safety Audit is ‘incomplete’, and b) the apparent disregard for many safety aspects for active travel at the roundabout in the RSA1 Response Report (dated 17/8/21).

I have concluded that there has been an error in the Safety Audit process. It seems to be the case that the initial RSA1 Safety Audit (28/6/21) was completed on an earlier set of plans which did not include the roundabout and an independent Safety Audit was not redone when the plans changed to include the roundabout. As subsequent steps prioritised motorised vehicle considerations, the new active travel safety issues were overlooked. Please see ‘Evidence’ section below for more detail.

This would explain the Council’s comment that the Safety Audit was ‘incomplete’ (actually meaning that the Safety Audit hadn’t been updated independently when the plans changed) and it would also explain the omissions that cyclists and walkers identify.

This process error has led to people relying on flawed data:
- The lack of mention of issues for active travel at the roundabout in the RSA1 Response Report has resulted in Councillors getting the impression that safety concerns raised by users of active travel are insignificant – ie it is assumed that if there had been valid vulnerable user safety concerns about the roundabout then these would have appeared in the RSA1 Safety Audit and in the RSA1 Response Report. Where there is no mention of a problem in the RSA1 Response Report, it is assumed that there must be no valid concerns. However if the independent RSA1 Safety Audit used plans that excluded the roundabout, then this assumption is incorrect.

- Also, as mentioned in earlier submissions, the Cabinet Member for Transport has sought to use the independence of the RSA1 Safety Audit to reassure constituents that safety is paramount. If the contention that plan change occurred is correct, and the independent RSA1 Safety Audit was not in fact completed on the current plans, then this reassurance is undermined.

Please would you release the independent RSA1 Safety Audit (dated 28/6/21) so that it can be seen whether Stantec excluded active travel considerations at the roundabout, and if so, whether this was because they were not working on the plans which extend to the roundabout, but on the previous plans which did not. This would make it clear what can be claimed about the process and inform decisions on what can be done to improve safety for (and thereby encourage) active travel at this roundabout in the future.

Evidence
1. Missing considerations
Some things that are missing from the RSA1 Review Report (which would have been expected to be in the independent RSA1 Safety Audit had it been conducted on the roundabout plans ie including the part-time traffic lights on the roundabout and at the top of the two A404 off-slip lanes):
a) Effect of traffic lights on roundabout: how the change in behaviour of some drivers in terms of ‘beating the lights’ and the resulting detrimental effect on active travel could potentially be mitigated. This is particularly a concern on the southern section of the roundabout where there would be lane swapping over a short distance after the lights.
b) Effect of part-time features of the traffic lights on pedestrians crossing slip roads. Specifically that it is apparently technically impossible to clearly let pedestrians know when it is safe to cross if the traffic lights are part-time (eg green walker ‘safe to cross now’ light).
c) Potential to improve the junction with respect to active travel on, around and approaching the roundabout.
Someone has remarked: ‘It’s as if active travel at the roundabout itself wasn’t considered at all’

2. EqIA which does not mention the roundabout
Evidence that assessments were made on an earlier plan and not redone when the plans were extended to the roundabout is provided by the seemingly very poor EqIA which omits reference to the roundabout itself. The detail provided in https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/w... shows that the EqIA was not based on the plans current in April 2022. This has been acknowledged by the Council in a written response dated 6/4/22 which states ‘it is recognised that the EqIA requires revision and updating’.

3. Section 2.9 of the RSA1 Response Report (provided in https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/w... )
More evidence is provided by the RSA1 Response Report, section 2.9, which has a copied suggestion from the RSA1 Safety Audit that traffic lights at the junction of the northbound off-slip and the roundabout could be considered as an alternative to the sharp segregated left turn lane. This means that these traffic lights were not on the plan used for the RSA1 Safety Audit (which was the only independent assessment of the safety of the Westhorpe Interchange proposal).

Yours sincerely,

Ms Elliott

Dear Buckinghamshire Council,

I note that the plans for Westhorpe Interchange have been cancelled due to safety concerns. I am pleased that the proposed changes which would have made the junction even more dangerous for cyclists and walkers will not be adopted. Details at https://buckinghamshire.moderngov.co.uk/...

I see in the National Highways documentation, which can be found at https://buckinghamshire.moderngov.co.uk/...
that NH was able to view the original 'Stage 1 Road Safety Audit', which is what I have been asking to be released.

It is clear from the table of documents created by NH, that this document is separate from the 'Stage 1 Road Safety Audit report'. The original 'Stage 1 Road Safety Audit' is listed as being the 'RSA report on the design of the Westhorpe junction proposals carried out in June 2021' while the document that you have supplied to me is the 'Stage 1 Road Safety Audit (RSA) report' which is listed as being the 'Designers response to the items raised within the RSA 1'.

Please would you release the independent original 'Stage 1 Road Safety Audit' (dated 28/6/21) so that it can be seen whether Stantec excluded active travel considerations at the roundabout, and if so, whether this was because they were not working on plans which extended to the roundabout, but on the previous plans which did not. This would make it clear what can be claimed about the process and inform decisions on what can be done to improve safety for (and thereby encourage) active travel at this roundabout in the future.

Yours sincerely,

Ms Elliott