We don't know whether the most recent response to this request contains information or not – if you are Adam Smith please sign in and let everyone know.

All TRO's issued by Manchester City Council

We're waiting for Adam Smith to read a recent response and update the status.

Dear Manchester City Council,

Please provide a copy of all Traffic Regulation Orders currently in force issued by Manchester City Council. This includes temporary and permanent orders.

Yours faithfully,

A A

Manchester City Council

Dear Mr Smith

Re: Request for Information - Reference No: HWY/AJJCVE

Thank you for your request for information received by Manchester City
Council on 13 February 2017.

Please note that it may take up to 20 working days (13 March 2017) for the
Council to consider your request and to provide a formal response.

If this timescale needs to be extended to consider an exemption you will be
notified and kept informed.

If you have any queries, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Yours sincerely

Cieran Cassidy
Democratic Services
PO Box 532
Town Hall
Manchester
M60 2LA

Email: [Manchester City Council request email]
Website: www.manchester.gov.uk

|---------------------------------------------->
| |
| |
| Adam Smith |
| <request-389314-fd393d08@whatdothe|
| yknow.com> |
| |
| 11/02/2017 19:34 |
| |
| |
|---------------------------------------------->
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+---|
| | |
| | |
| To| |
| FOI requests at Manchester City Council <[Manchester City Council request email]> | |
| cc| |
| | |
| Subject| |
| Freedom of Information request - All TRO's issued by Manchester City Council | |
| | |
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+---|

Dear Manchester City Council,

Please provide a copy of all Traffic Regulation Orders currently in force
issued by Manchester City Council. This includes temporary and permanent
orders.

Yours faithfully,

A A

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[FOI #389314 email]

Is [Manchester City Council request email] the wrong address for Freedom of
Information requests to Manchester City Council? If so, please contact us
using this form:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/change_re...

Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on
the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/offi...

For more detailed guidance on safely disclosing information, read the
latest advice from the ICO:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/ico-...

If you find this service useful as an FOI officer, please ask your web
manager to link to us from your organisation's FOI page.

show quoted sections

Manchester City Council

Dear Mr Smith

Request for Information - Ref 405 HWY/AJJCVE

Thank you for your request for information, which was received by
Manchester City Council on 13 February 2017. The Council has considered
the information requested and is satisfied that it falls within the broad
definition of “environmental information” in the Environmental Information
Regulations 2004 (EIR). Your request for information has therefore been
considered your under the provisions of the EIR and l can confirm that the
Council holds this information.

I set out below your request for information and the Council’s response

You have requested:
Please provide a copy of all Traffic Regulation Orders currently in force
issued by Manchester City Council. This includes temporary and permanent
orders.

In response:

There are currently in excess of 3500 Traffic Regulation Orders (TRO's) and
Temporary Traffic Regulation Orders (TTRO's) in place in Manchester, with
some orders containing between 50 and 100 pages. It has been estimated it
would take an officer in excess of 583 hours to locate, retrieve and
extract this information

While there is no fixed cost limit under the EIR (unlike the Freedom of
Information Act (FoIA) where there is a statutory cost limit of £450 (which
is calculated as being approximately 18 hours or 2.5 days of a council
officer's time to determine whether the Council holds the information,
locate, retrieve and extract the information)), Regulation 12(4)(b) of the
EIR provides that the Council may refuse to disclose information to the
extent that “the request for information is manifestly unreasonable”.

Public authorities have been encouraged to align their FoIA and EIR
charging policies to ensure consistency and avoid unfairness. The Council
has therefore decided that EIR applicants should be treated the same as
FoIA applicants and that no charge should be levied if a request is capable
of being serviced under the FoIA cost limit. Conversely, where an EIR
request would exceed 18 hours of council officer’s time, the Council has
decided that the criteria for triggering the manifestly unreasonable
exception in Regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR should be interpreted
consistently with the cost limit under FoIA referred to above).

This approach is provided for in the Council’s Fees & Charges Policy, which
is published on the Council’s website and may be downloaded from
http://www.manchester.gov.uk/site/script...
. If you do not have internet access and require a paper copy, please let
me know.

The exception to disclosure under Regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR is subject
to a “public interest test.

In considering your request the Councils has gone on to consider whether it
is in the public interest to maintain the exception to disclosure under
Regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR and has determined that, on balance, it is
more beneficial to the public to withhold the information requested than to
release it. In reaching this decision the Council recognises that a
public authority shall apply a presumption in favour of disclosure as the
public interest in promoting openness and transparency. However, it must
balance this consideration against the disproportionate burden and strain
on officer time in responding to this part of your request. It must also
balance this against the level of disruption and burden affecting their
ability to carry out day to day duties and operations including responding
to requests for information from other requesters. Applying the standard
rate of £25 per hour for Council officer time, the Council estimates that
it would cost in excess of £14,575 and 83 days of officer time to provide
you with the requested information.

In light of the exception quoted above, we would ask you to consider
refining your request.

We can provide you with a list of TRO's and TTRO's currently in place
within the timescale. If this would satisfy your search please let me know

Please note that if you modify your request, we will handle it as a new
request and so the 20-working-day deadline for responding to requests would
then commence from the date that we receive the modified request

If you are not satisfied with this response you may ask for an internal
review. If you wish an internal review to be undertaken you should contact
the Democratic Services Legal Team, whose address is, PO Box 532, Town
Hall, Manchester, M60 2LA, email:
[Manchester City Council request email] in the first instance. A copy of
the Council’s access to information complaints procedure can be downloaded
from
http://www.manchester.gov.uk/downloads/d...
. If you do not have internet access and require a paper copy, please let
me know.

If you are not content with the outcome of the internal review process, you
have the right to apply directly to the Information Commissioner for a
decision.

The Information Commissioner can be contacted at:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Tel: 01625 545700
Fax: 01625 524510
www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk

Please remember to quote the reference number above in any future
communications.

Yours sincerely,
Kevin Gillham
Head of Citywide Highways
Corporate Core - Highways

show quoted sections

Dear Manchester City Council,

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

I am writing to request an internal review of Manchester City Council's handling of my FOI request 'All TRO's issued by Manchester City Council'.

My request for a copy of all the TRO's (permanent and temporary) currently in force has been denied on the basis that it is 'manifestly unreasonable' and not in the public interest.

This is unfathomable.

Breaches of TRO's by citizens typically lead to fines or other sanctions. It is therefore vital that such TRO's are made publically available.

TRO's are put out for public consultation before being enacted and therefore the Council has already establised it to be a matter of public interest.

It cannot be the case that the TRO's are not readily accessible nor easy to locate. If however the Council maintains that they are not readily accessible then this will certainly lead to legitimate questions as to the legal basis the Council issues some parking fines if the relevant TRO's cannot be cited nor provided.

Again I require a copy of all TRO's currently in force by the Council - this can be done either by uploading it to the Internet or providing a physical copy.

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

Yours faithfully,

Adam Smith

Manchester City Council

Dear Mr Smith

Re: Request for Information - Internal Review - Reference No:
HWY/AJJCVE-IR

Thank you for your email dated 7 March 2017 regarding the Council's
response to your request for information.

Your email will be treated as a request for internal review of that
original decision and will be dealt with in accordance with the Council’s
Access to Information Complaint Procedure. The procedure is available on
the Council’s web site at

http://www.manchester.gov.uk/downloads/d...

Please note your request will be handled as speedily as possible and a
response should be issued no later than 4 April 2017.

Yours sincerely

Cieran Cassidy
Democratic Services
PO Box 532
Town Hall
Manchester
M60 2LA

Email: [Manchester City Council request email]
www.manchester.gov.uk

|---------------------------------------------->
| |
| |
| Adam Smith |
| <request-389314-fd393d08@whatdothe|
| yknow.com> |
| |
| 07/03/2017 13:37 |
| |
| |
|---------------------------------------------->
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+---|
| | |
| | |
| To| |
| FOI requests at Manchester City Council <[Manchester City Council request email]> | |
| cc| |
| | |
| Subject| |
| Internal review of Freedom of Information request - All TRO's issued by Manchester City Council| |
| | |
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+---|

Dear Manchester City Council,

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

I am writing to request an internal review of Manchester City Council's
handling of my FOI request 'All TRO's issued by Manchester City Council'.

My request for a copy of all the TRO's (permanent and temporary) currently
in force has been denied on the basis that it is 'manifestly unreasonable'
and not in the public interest.

This is unfathomable.

Breaches of TRO's by citizens typically lead to fines or other sanctions.
It is therefore vital that such TRO's are made publically available.

TRO's are put out for public consultation before being enacted and
therefore the Council has already establised it to be a matter of public
interest.

It cannot be the case that the TRO's are not readily accessible nor easy to
locate. If however the Council maintains that they are not readily
accessible then this will certainly lead to legitimate questions as to the
legal basis the Council issues some parking fines if the relevant TRO's
cannot be cited nor provided.

Again I require a copy of all TRO's currently in force by the Council -
this can be done either by uploading it to the Internet or providing a
physical copy.

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

Yours faithfully,

Adam Smith

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[FOI #389314 email]

Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on
the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/offi...

For more detailed guidance on safely disclosing information, read the
latest advice from the ICO:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/ico-...

If you find this service useful as an FOI officer, please ask your web
manager to link to us from your organisation's FOI page.

show quoted sections

Manchester City Council

Dear Mr Smith

Re: - Request for Information – Traffic Regulation Orders, temporary or
permanent - 405 HWY/AJJCVE-IR – Internal Review

I refer to your correspondence dated 7 March 2017 in which you raised
concerns with the response provided by Manchester City Council dated 7
March 2017. As a result the Council has carried out an Internal Review into
the handling of your Request for Information.

Background
In your original request, which was received on the 13 February 2017, you
asked for the following information:

Please provide a copy of all Traffic Regulation Orders currently in force
issued by Manchester City Council. This includes temporary and permanent
orders.

On 7 March, you submitted an Internal Review and stated:

I am writing to request an internal review of Manchester City Council's
handling of my FOI request 'All TRO's issued by Manchester City Council'.
My request for a copy of all the TRO's (permanent and temporary) currently
in force has been denied on the basis that it is 'manifestly unreasonable'
and not in the public interest.

This is unfathomable.

Breaches of TRO's by citizens typically lead to fines or other sanctions.
It is therefore vital that such TRO's are made publically available. TRO's
are put out for public consultation before being enacted and therefore the
Council has already established it to be a matter of public interest.

It cannot be the case that the TRO's are not readily accessible nor easy to
locate. If however the Council maintains that they are not readily
accessible then this will certainly lead to legitimate questions as to the
legal basis the Council issues some parking fines if the relevant TRO's
cannot be cited nor provided.

Again I require a copy of all TRO's currently in force by the Council -
this can be done either by uploading it to the Internet or providing a
physical copy.

Findings

As part of this Internal Review I have reconsidered your original Request
for Information and the Council’s response which relied on exception,
Regulation 12 (4) (b)

Regulation 12 (4)(b) Manifestly Unreasonable

Which states:

12.—(1) Subject to paragraphs (2), (3) and (9), a public authority may
refuse to disclose environmental information requested if—

(a) an exception to disclosure applies under paragraphs (4) or (5); and

(b) in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in
maintaining the exception outweighs the public interest in disclosing the
information.

(2) A public authority shall apply a presumption in favour of disclosure.

(3) To the extent that the information requested includes personal data of
which the applicant is not the data subject, the personal data shall not be
disclosed otherwise than in accordance with regulation 13.

(4) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(a), a public authority may refuse to
disclose information to the extent that—

(a) it does not hold that information when an applicant’s request is
received;

(b) the request for information is manifestly unreasonable;

In determining whether the request for information is manifestly
unreasonable the Council is entitled to consider whether the request places
a substantial and unreasonable burden on its resources particularly when
the amount of information sought is considerable.

As previously explained in the initial response dated 7 March 2017, the
Council has in excess of 3500 TRO's and TTRO's therefore the cost of
locating, extracting and providing you with scans or copies of all of these
as you have requested would prove prohibitive. The cost of compliance
would place a substantial and unreasonable burden on the Council’s
resources and I am therefore satisfied that the exception is engaged.

This exception is subject to a public interest test and I am satisfied that
the factors set out in the initial response were all relevant and
applicable. Those factors are summarised below:

Public interest considerations favouring disclosure:
• The Council recognises that under EIR there is a presumption in
favour of disclosure
• The general public interest in transparency and accountability

Public interest considerations favouring withholding the information:
• To comply with your request and provide the information would take an
estimated 583 hours of officer time and place a disproportionate burden and
strain on officer time and public money
• It would create a level of disruption and adversely affect officers’
ability to carry out their day to day duties and operations including
responding to requests for information from other requesters therefore
hindering the efficient operation of the Council.

It is worth noting for information that should any person wish to challenge
the validity of any traffic restriction(s) in a specific location or street
a sufficiently narrow request for this information could be made and a copy
of the relevant TRO provided. In addition if, for any reason, a member of
the public wished to challenge the legal basis of a Penalty Charge Notice
then there is a pre-existing appeal process for this purpose. As part of
the appeal process the individual TRO containing the restrictions in
question could be located in order to verify the exact nature of the
restriction that is in place and is being challenged.

Furthermore whilst you are correct that the Council does carry out a
statutory consultation exercise with regards to proposed TROs prior to them
being enacted this is to allow interested parties that may be affected by
the proposals to make representations. The representations are then
considered as part of the overall consultation exercise to ensure the
proposals are both appropriate and fit for purpose. In addition proposed
TROs are advertised in local newspapers and on location in order to raise
awareness of forthcoming proposals.

Finally following the consultation exercise and once a TRO is sealed and
brought into effect all traffic restrictions contained in that TRO are
signed and lined in accordance with prescribed legislation with the purpose
of ensuring the restrictions are visible to all members of the public.
Therefore providing copies of all the TROs and TTROs in Manchester is not
required to enable individuals to ensure they do not breach restrictions as
the restrictions are adequately and legally signed.

Having reviewed your request, the application of the exception and the
public interest test balancing exercise, I am satisfied that the public
interest is best served by not providing you with the information you have
requested. I have determined that the exception was engaged and applied
correctly in the Council’s initial response.

As laid out under Regulation 9(1) of the EIR, the Council is obliged to
provide advice and assistance, so far as it would be reasonable to expect
the Council to do so. In the Councils original response you were offered
the opportunity to refine your request and also given guidance on what
could be provided within the time limit, should this satisfy your request.
I am therefore satisfied that Regulation 9(1) was adhered to.

Conclusion
In conclusion I uphold the Councils original decision dated 7 March 2017 to
refuse your request for the information on the basis of the above
exception.

I appreciate that this decision may be disappointing but hope that there is
sufficient information to explain why the original decision was upheld. If
you do wish to modify or refine your request, as laid out in the councils
response dated 7 March, please do so by contacting the Democratic Services
Legal Team, whose address is, PO Box 532, Town Hall, Manchester, M60 2LA,
email: [Manchester City Council request email]

This response constitutes the Council’s response to the internal review of
your request for information. If you are not satisfied with the outcome of
this internal review, you have the right to apply directly to the
Information Commissioner for a decision.

The information Commissioner can be contacted at:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF

Telephone: 01625 545 745
www.ico.org.uk

Please remember to quote the reference number above in any future
communications about this matter.

Yours sincerely,

Rachel Christie
Strategic Lead Public Realm
Highways Service
Corporate Core
Manchester City Council

show quoted sections

Dear Manchester City Council,

Thank you for your correspondence.

I am reluctant to pass this matter on to the Information Commissioner as it is common knowledge that the office of the Information Commissioner faces a lengthy backlog in dealing with such matters.

There is a concern that local authorities are using the ICO referral as a way of deferring on taking action in such cases. In effect they are kicking unwelcome FOI requests into the long grass in the hope that the matter is dropped by the requester.

I will therefore ask you to provide me with a list of all TRO's and TTRO's as per your suggestion in previous correspondence.

After receiving the list I will then make seperate FOI requests for batches of the TRO's/TTRO's. This should avoid the Council being placed under substantial pressure as you have suggested.

Yours faithfully,

Adam Smith

Manchester City Council

Dear Mr Smith

Re: Request for Information - Reference No: HWY/ALBAVD

Thank you for your request for information received by Manchester City
Council on 10 April 2017.

Please note that it may take up to 20 working days (11 May 2017) for the
Council to consider your request and to provide a formal response.

If this timescale needs to be extended to consider an exemption you will be
notified and kept informed.

If you have any queries, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Yours sincerely

Cieran Cassidy
Democratic Services
PO Box 532
Town Hall
Manchester
M60 2LA

Email: [Manchester City Council request email]
Website: www.manchester.gov.uk

|---------------------------------------------->
| |
| |
| Adam Smith |
| <request-389314-fd393d08@whatdothe|
| yknow.com> |
| |
| 10/04/2017 17:14 |
| |
| |
|---------------------------------------------->
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+---|
| | |
| | |
| To| |
| FOI requests at Manchester City Council <[Manchester City Council request email]> | |
| cc| |
| | |
| Subject| |
| Re: Request for Information – Traffic Regulation Orders, temporary or permanent - 405 | |
| HWY/AJJCVE-IR – Internal Review | |
| | |
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+---|

Dear Manchester City Council,

Thank you for your correspondence.

I am reluctant to pass this matter on to the Information Commissioner as it
is common knowledge that the office of the Information Commissioner faces a
lengthy backlog in dealing with such matters.

There is a concern that local authorities are using the ICO referral as a
way of deferring on taking action in such cases. In effect they are kicking
unwelcome FOI requests into the long grass in the hope that the matter is
dropped by the requester.

I will therefore ask you to provide me with a list of all TRO's and TTRO's
as per your suggestion in previous correspondence.

After receiving the list I will then make seperate FOI requests for
batches of the TRO's/TTRO's. This should avoid the Council being placed
under substantial pressure as you have suggested.

Yours faithfully,

Adam Smith

show quoted sections

Manchester City Council

2 Attachments

Dear Mr Smith

Request for Information - Ref 16 HWY/ALBAVD

Thank you for your request for information, which was received by
Manchester City Council on 10 April 2017.  The Council has considered the
information requested and is satisfied that it falls within the broad
definition of “environmental information” in the Environmental Information
Regulations 2004 (EIR).  Your request for information has therefore been
considered your under the provisions of the EIR and l can confirm that the
Council holds this information.

I set out below your request for information and the Council’s response

You have requested:
A list of all TRO's and TTRO's

In response:
Please find information attached.

Please note if you are not satisfied with this response you may ask for an
internal review. If you wish an internal review to be undertaken you should
contact the Democratic Services Legal Team, whose address is, PO Box 532,
Town Hall, Manchester, M60 2LA, email:
[Manchester City Council request email] in the first instance. A copy of
the Council’s access to information complaints procedure can be downloaded
from
http://www.manchester.gov.uk/downloads/d...
. If you do not have internet access and require a paper copy, please let
me know.

If you are not content with the outcome of the internal review process, you
have the right to apply directly to the Information Commissioner for a
decision.

The Information Commissioner can be contacted at:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Tel: 01625 545700
Fax: 01625 524510
www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk

Please remember to quote the reference number above in any future
communications.

Yours sincerely,
Kevin Gillham
Head of Citywide Highways
Corporate Core - Highways

(See attached file: TTRO.pdf) (See attached file: TRO.zip)

show quoted sections

We don't know whether the most recent response to this request contains information or not – if you are Adam Smith please sign in and let everyone know.