Dear Ms Hayhurst,

 

Thank you for your enquiry, which has been forwarded to the appropriate
officers for a response.

 

Please note that following a decision by the Cabinet at a meeting on 4th
September 2012, FoI and EIR requests to West Sussex County Council and the
Council's responses may be published on the Council's website in a
suitably anonymised form. This is in addition to the individual response
to the requestor, and in line with the Council's commitment to
transparency and open data.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Dave Loveman

Customer Relations Team Manager

 

 

Freedom Of Information |  [1]West Sussex County Council | Location:
County Hall, Chichester PO19 1RQ
E-mail: [2][email address]

 

 

show quoted sections

Our Ref: 997

 

Dear Ms Hayhurst

 

Freedom of Information Act 2000

 

I refer to your request for information in relation to correspondence
between WSCC and Sussex Police that relates to the anti-fracking protests
and camp.  Your request was received by me on 24 January 2014 and is being
processed under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

 

I decline to disclose the correspondence referred to in your request for
information.

 

I apply the exemption in s36 Freedom of Information Act 2000 on the basis
that disclosure would prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs.

 

It is important to ensure key players in correspondence with partnership
organisations, dealing with emergencies, are able to liaise frankly and
freely around urgent issues involving the management of public
demonstrations, with a view to protecting the public, without the
constraint of knowing that their communications will be disclosed to the
public.

 

I consider there is little public interest in disclosure of the details in
terms of furthering public understanding of the management of the protest,
that interest already having been served by a number of press releases.
There is considerable public interest in ensuring the emergency services
are able to work jointly and affectively in emergency situations.

 

If you are unhappy with the way your request has been handled, you may
wish to ask for a review of our decision under our complaints procedure. 
Please contact the complaints section via our website.

 

If you are not content with the outcome your complaint, you may apply
directly to the Information Commissioner for a decision. Generally, the
ICO cannot make a decision unless you have exhausted our complaints
procedure. The Information Commissioner can be contacted at: 

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

 

Please remember to quote our reference number above in any further
correspondence.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Alison Attwood

Business Practitioner

 

 

Alison Attwood | Business Practitioner, Business Management Team, Business
Improvement, [1]West Sussex County Council
Location: Room 215, East Wing, County Hall, Chichester PO19 1RF
Internal: 28338 | External: +44 (0) 3302 228338 | E-mail:
[2][email address]

 

 

show quoted sections

Dear Ms Hayhurst,

 

Thank you for your request for a review of the Council’s decision. The
review will be carried out by an appropriate senior officer and you will
be advised of the outcome as soon as possible.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Dave Loveman

Customer Relations Team Manager

 

Freedom Of Information |  [1]West Sussex County Council | Location:
County Hall, Chichester PO19 1RQ
E-mail: [2][email address]

 

 

show quoted sections

Dear Ms Hayhurst

 

Re: Freedom of Information Requests dated 23^rd January 2014 – Internal
Review

 

I have been asked to conduct an internal review in respect of the handling
of two Freedom of Information requests made by you, both dated 23^rd
January 2014.

 

Request 1 (No. 997)

“Please supply any correspondence between West Sussex County Council and
Sussex Police that relates to the anti-fracking protest and camp outside
Cuadrilla's oil exploration site at London Road, Balcombe.

 

To limit the extent of the request, I would be happy to accept
correspondence to and from Sussex Police to the following officers and
members of West Sussex County Council:

 

The leader of the council, Louise Goldsmith Strategic planning manager,
Mike Elkington Head of Law and Governance, Tony Kershaw Head of Highways
and Transport, Geoff Lowry Chief Executive, Kieran Stigant

 

I am also happy to limit the request to correspondence that was exchanged
between the following dates:  Friday 9th August to Friday  4th October.”

 

Request 2 (no. 998)

“Please supply any notes or minutes of two meetings held on Friday 6th
September and Monday 9th September between West Sussex County Council and
Sussex Police. These meetings were held to discuss issues arising from the
anti-fracking protests outside Cuadrilla's oil exploration site at London
Road, Balcombe.

 

Please also supply the contents of any correspondence  between West Sussex
County Council and Sussex Police relating to these meetings that were
exchanged during the period  Friday 30th August to Friday 13th September.”

 

Response to Request 1 (No. 997)

I note that Alison Attwood wrote to you by way of email dated 7^th March
and timed at 11.06.  The Authority declined to disclose the information
requested and applied the exemption under section 36 of the Freedom of
Information Act 2000 (effective conduct of public affairs).

 

 

Response to Request 2 (No. 998)

I note that Alison Attwood, wrote to you by email on 25^th February and
confirmed that the Authority does not have any notes from the meetings on
6^th / 9^th September.  However, you were provided with a copy of the
command structure and timetable that was discussed at the meetings. I also
note that the email stated that you were also being provided “with copies
of correspondence between the Authority and the Police during the period
Friday 30th August to Friday 13th September” and that you were advised
that personal data had been redacted and the exemption contained in
Section 40 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 had been applied.  In
fact, the correspondence referred to was not sent with that email, it was
held back pending advice from Legal Services and you were advised that
Alison would be undertaking further checks of correspondence to complete
the remainder of your request. 

 

Following further checks, Alison Attwood wrote to you again by email on
7^th March and timed at 09.31 and advised you that The Authority was
declining to disclose the correspondence requested and the exemption under
section 36 of the Freedom of Information Act was applied (effective
conduct of public affairs).

 

Review of the use of the Section 36 Exemption

Section 36 provides an exemption to disclosure if, disclosure would or
would be likely to inhibit the free and frank provision of advice or
exchange of views; or otherwise prejudice the effective conduct of public
affairs.

 

In this case, I note that section 36(2)(i) and 36(2)(ii) have been
applied, which provide that “information to which this section applies is
exempt information if, in the reasonable opinion of a qualified person,
disclosure of the information  would, or would be likely to, inhibit (i)
the free and frank provision of advice, or (ii) the free and frank
exchange of views for the purposes of deliberation”.

 

I am satisfied that the Head of Law and Governance is a qualified person
within the meaning of the Act and that it was his reasonable opinion that
determined the application of the section 36 exemption.

 

The exemption under section 36 is a qualified exemption and therefore the
public interest test must be applied.  In conducting the internal review
of this matter I have considered the various public interest arguments for
and against disclosure.

 

Undoubtedly, in the ordinary course of events, there is public interest in
disclosing information to the public as it supports openness, transparency
and accountability.  However, I am of the view that the public interest in
knowing the Authority’s involvement in this matter is served by the
various press releases released at the time, and that relevant information
was made available to the public about how the protest was dealt with and
cleared.  In my view this is sufficient to enable the public to bring the
Authority to account for its involvement or to engage in debate about the
management of the protest.

 

I have also considered the arguments in favour of maintaining the
exemption.  I consider that there would be an adverse impact on the
Authority’s ability to conduct public affairs irrespective of the timing
of the disclosure. I is reasonable to anticipate that an officer would
more than likely conduct the correspondence and the disclosure of his
views very differently, and less effectively, if he knew that the
communications about his thoughts, confidential information, analysis,
urgent advice and decisions would be disclosed at some stage in the
future. Where time is of the essence it is likely that the speed of a
response might also be hampered and content edited resulting in important
information not being shared.

 

I have considered whether the public interest in maintaining this
exemption after the event is passed still applies.  In my view, it is
crucial to preserve the ability of Authority officers to carry out their
functions in a free and unfettered manner so as to manage most effectively
emergency situations.  Without the ability to have those open exchanges, a
public authority would fetter its ability to consider all relevant
information and to make fair and reasonable decisions.

 

It is therefore my view that the balance of public interest is very much
in favour of maintaining the exemption.  Accordingly, I am satisfied that
the decision of the qualified person was a reasonable opinion and that the
exemption contained in section 36 was applied correctly.

 

If you are not content with the outcome of your complaint, you may apply
directly to the Information Commissioner for a decision. Generally, the
ICO cannot make a decision unless you have exhausted our complaints
procedure. The Information Commissioner can be contacted at: 

 

The Information Commissioner's Office

Wycliffe House

Water Lane

Wilmslow

Cheshire  SK9 5AF. 

 

Yours sincerely

Mrs Diane Ashby

 

[1]Diane Ashby | Chief Operating Officer, [2]West Sussex County Council |
Location: County Hall, Chichester, PO19 1RQ
External: 01243 777100 | E-mail: [3][email address]

 

 

From: Ruth Hayhurst [4][mailto:[FOI #194453 email]]
Sent: 07 March 2014 16:25
To: Freedom of Information Act
Subject: Internal review of Freedom of Information request -
Correspondence relating to anti-fracking protests at Balcombe

 

Dear West Sussex County Council,

 

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

 

I am writing to request an internal review of West Sussex County Council's
handling of my FOI request 'Correspondence relating to anti-fracking
protests at Balcombe'.

 

I should be grateful if you would review the reasons given for the refusal
of my request. I believe that disclosure of discussions between West
Sussex County Council and Sussex Police about the Balcombe protests is in
the public interest.

 

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

 

Yours faithfully,

 

Ruth Hayhurst

 

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

Please use this email address for all replies to this request:

[6][FOI #194453 email]

 

Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on
the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:

[7]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/offi...

 

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