Cycleway 4 and Lower Road gyratory

Response to this request is long overdue. By law, under all circumstances, Transport for London should have responded by now (details). You can complain by requesting an internal review.

Rotherhithe Area Housing Forum

Dear Transport for London,

Can you please send us the following, in relation to the proposed Cycleway 4 (Southwark section between China Hall and Evelyn Street) and proposed changes to Lower Road / Rotherhithe Old Road / A2208 / Bush Road gyratory and Rotherhithe during 2017, 2018 and 2019:

(1) A list of meetings you have held or attended with Southwark Council, Southwark council councillors, property developers or their representatives

(2) Documents or emails setting out any comments, suggestions views you have set out about the proposals

Public Interest
This request is in the public interest because delivering Cycleway 4 at Surrey Quays is dependent on Southwark Council's Rotherhithe Movement Plan which does not comply with Southwark Council policy, Canada Water Area Action Plan or Mayor Of London's policies. The Rotherhithe Movement Plan will increase pollution in residential streets (that are already polluted), make bus time longer, remove zebra crossing, increase pedestrian journey times, ensure that motor traffic dominates Lower Road / Rotherhithe Old Road / A2208 gyratory and Bush Road and so on. Traffic flow will increase in Rotherhithe Old Road which is already congested and polluted. Southwark Cllrs Mark Williams and Ian Wingfield wrote to Will Norman (17/8/2017) "In particular we would like to progress designs for alternative routing for CS4". It appears the councillors were not happy about TfLs proposal at the time. We seek to know TfL's involvement in making the Rotherhithe Movement Plan and the current proposals that will harm our residents and environment. It looks as though plans have been influenced by lobbying. The Canada Water Area Action Plan states:

“Policy 8: Vehicular traffic
...
We will work with TfL and Lewisham to make the following improvements to
the road network to accommodate growth at Canada Water
• Introduce a right turn into Surrey Quays Road for north-bound traffic on
Lower Road.
• Reintroduce two-way traffic movement on Lower Road and enable a
straight-across movement from Plough Way to Rotherhithe New Road.
Our objective will be to reduce traffic flows on Rotherhithe Old Road, simplify
In the network for all users, make the network more efficient, create a safer,
more attractive environment for pedestrians and cyclists and make sure that
the reliability and frequency of buses is not affected."

“4.3.17 Using the model, we have prepared a comprehensive transport strategy for
this area. Our proposals aim to simplify the gyratory system making it less
complicated for all users. Our testing shows that reintroducing two-way traffic
on Lower Road substantially reduces traffic flows on Rotherhithe Old Road
which has the potential to significantly improve the environment for residents.
While the proposed changes do not significantly increase the capacity of the
network, revised signalling of key junctions enables traffic to move through
the area more smoothly. It will also enable us to improve pedestrian crossings
on Lower Road, reducing the barrier effect it currently creates between the
shopping centre and Surrey Quays station, the Hawkstone Estate and
Southwark Park. In revising the AAP, we will re-run our testing we have
reviewed growth and trip assumptions associated with a redevelopment of
Harmsworth Quays to make sure that our strategy for improving transport in
the area remains robust.”

Yours faithfully,
Rotherhithe Area Housing Forum

FOI, Transport for London

Dear Sir / Madam,

 

TfL Ref: FOI-1675-1920

 

Thank you for your request received by Transport for London (TfL) on 28^th
August 2019 asking for information about Cycleway 4.

 

Your request will be processed in accordance with the requirements of the
Freedom of Information Act and our information access policy. 

 

A response will be sent to you by 25^th September 2019. We publish a
substantial range of information on our website on subjects including
operational performance, contracts, expenditure, journey data, governance
and our financial performance. This includes data which is frequently
asked for in FOI requests or other public queries. Please check
[1]http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/transpar... to see if this helps you.

 

We will publish anonymised versions of requests and responses on the
[2]www.tfl.gov.uk website. We will not publish your name and we will send
a copy of the response to you before it is published on our website.

 

In the meantime, if you would like to discuss this matter further, please
do not hesitate to contact me.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

David Wells

FOI Case Officer

FOI Case Management Team

General Counsel

Transport for London

 

 

 

show quoted sections

FOI, Transport for London

1 Attachment

Dear Sir / Madam,

 

TfL Ref: FOI-1675-1920

 

Thank you for your email of 28^th August 2019 asking for information about
the Cycleway 4 project.

 

Your request has been considered in accordance with the requirements of
the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act and our information access policy.

 

Specifically you asked:

 

“Can you please send us the following, in relation to the proposed
Cycleway 4 (Southwark section between China Hall and Evelyn Street) and
proposed changes to Lower Road / Rotherhithe Old Road / A2208 / Bush Road
gyratory and Rotherhithe during 2017, 2018 and 2019:

 

(1) A list of meetings you have held or attended with Southwark Council,
Southwark council councillors, property developers or their
representatives

 

(2) Documents or emails setting out any comments, suggestions views you
have set out about the proposals.”

 

I can confirm that we hold the information you require. However, to answer
your questions would exceed the costs limit for responding to FOI cases
set out in section 12 of the FOI Act. Under section 12 of the Act, we are
not obliged to comply with a request if we estimate that the cost of
determining whether we hold the information, and then locating, retrieving
or extracting it from other information, would exceed the appropriate
limit. This is calculated at £25 per hour for every hour spent on the
activities described – equivalent to 18 hours work.

 

There is no easy way for TfL to locate the information you have requested.
In relation to your first question alone, we have identified 6-8 members
of staff from the Cycleway 4 project team who have potentially had direct
liaison with the Council and others over the three years in question. A
list of the meetings they have had has not been previously compiled.
Therefore, such information would need to be sourced from the original
records such as the calendars of the individuals concerned. We believe
that to collate this information in itself would exceed the 18-hour limit
(even if it were just 6 members of staff, a review of their calendars
would need to be conducted at a rate of 1 year every hour). However, in
addition to this, we believe that there are other individuals in other
teams who may have had discussions with the Council / developers, and the
time taken to source that information would need to be factored in as
well, along with the time spent addressing your second question. While it
is difficult to say exactly how long all of this would take, we believe it
would be well in excess of the threshold.

 

To help bring the cost of responding to your request within the £450
limit, you may wish to consider narrowing or reframing its scope so that
we can more easily locate, retrieve and extract the information you are
seeking. If you do choose to submit a reframed request, I would ask that
you be more explicit as to the exact information you are requesting – for
example, at present, it is not entirely clear what information you think
is held in relation to your second question. I would point you to the
guidance provided by the Information Commissioner on how best to access
information from a public body, and in particular the table of “dos and
don’ts” found on their website here:

 

[1]https://ico.org.uk/your-data-matters/off...

 

As you can see, the Commissioner advises that applicants be as specific as
possible, and that they should not send “catch all requests” nor “fish for
information”. The Commissioner also suggests that it may be helpful to
explain the purpose behind the request.

 

Please see the attached information sheet for details of your right to
appeal.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

David Wells

FOI Case Officer

FOI Case Management Team

General Counsel

Transport for London

 

 

 

show quoted sections

Rotherhithe Area Housing Forum

Dear TfL / David Wells,
Thank you for the response. We note that TfL's response in this case is less helpful that TfL's response to a similar request made about another cycleway where you were able to provide the information requested. Nethertheless, thank you for informing that you hold the information and that you have identified 6-8 members of staff from the Cycleway 4 project team who have potentially had direct liaison with the Council and others over the three years in question. Is it 6,7 or 8? And how do you wish us to refer to them? Can we have their names to help narrow the request? Normally there is a lead member and therefore to narrow the request please can you provide the information for ONE of the 6-8 hopefully a lead member of the team? With the aid of technology nowadays that should help come in under the limits. In our view it is more efficient to handle one request from one requestor than multiple requests from multiple request makers and we hope you will take that into account when choosing to invest time and money in excess of the limits you can impose under FOIA. It can also help to great lower legal costs going forward in the event of any legal challenge and that is very much in the public interest too. We all want to cooperate and deliver a wonderful new CW4 however the serious flaws of Southwark Council's Rotherhithe Movement Plan do need to be sorted out.

Yours sincerely,
Rotherhithe Area Housing Forum

FOI, Transport for London

Dear Sir / Madam,

 

TfL Ref: FOI-1831-1920

 

Thank you for your further email of 18^th September 2019 asking for
information about the Cycleway 4 project.

It is not entirely clear what information you are now seeking. Can you
confirm that your reframed request is to know how many times the leader of
TfL’s Cycleway 4 project team met with Southwark Council in 2017, 2018 and
2019? If so I will respond on that basis.

 

Please note that the 20 working day deadline for responding to your
request will depend on when we receive satisfactory additional
information to help clarify your request.  

 

If we hear nothing further from you by 10^th October 2019 the case will be
closed and any subsequent response will be treated as a new request.

 

In the meantime, if you have any queries please do not hesitate to contact
me.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

David Wells

FOI Case Officer

FOI Case Management Team

General Counsel

Transport for London

 

 

 

show quoted sections

Rotherhithe Area Housing Forum

Dear Transport for London,

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

I am writing to request an internal review of Transport for London's handling of my FOI request 'Cycleway 4 and Lower Road gyratory'.

TfL refused to provide
"(1) A list of meetings you have held or attended with Southwark Council, Southwark council councillors, property developers or their representatives" on grounds of time/cost however this has been provided by London Borough of Southwark 27/9/2019. Please can you examine the list provided by London Borough of Southwark and ensure it is complete as best you can?
The list of meetings is at:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/c...
190927 Meeting list 3.pdf EIR 1112245.pdf

For (2) "Documents or emails setting out any comments, suggestions views you
have set out about the proposals" this part of the request can be closed.

Thank you.
Rotherhithe Area Housing Forum

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

Yours faithfully,

Rotherhithe Area Housing Forum

FOI, Transport for London

Dear Sir/Madam

 

Thank you for you email. 

 

Firstly, section 8 of the FOI Act outlines the following -

 

To be valid under Section 8 a request must:

 

·         be in writing;

·         include the requester’s name and an address for correspondence;
and,

·         describe the information being requested.

 

The requester can be an individual, a company or an organisation but in
each case they must provide their real name. A request made under a
pseudonym will be invalid.

 

This should have been requested when your initial request was received,
however can you please now provide a correspondence name to validate your
request.

 

Secondly, I am aware that you have submitted a new revised request
(FOI-1831-1920) following our response of 13 September.  As part of an
internal review appeal, I can review the application of s12 to your
original request (FOI-1675-1920) to ascertain whether it was applied
appropriately, however I am unable to compare our data with the data
provided to you by Southwark Council if that is what you are seeking.

 

Therefore can you please provide a correspondence name and clarify what it
is you wish for me to review. If I hear nothing further from you by Monday
7 October I will presume you do not require any further action.

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

Emma Flint

Principal Information Access Adviser

FOI Case Management Team

Transport for London

[1][TfL request email]

show quoted sections

 

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[TfL request email]
2. http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/about-tfl/

Rotherhithe Area Housing Forum

Dear TfL / Emma Flint
Firstly, our request was made in writing.
Secondly, our request included the requester’s real name.
Thirdly, our request was made using this social media website and the site offers a means for TfL to respond (such as a hyperlink to the requester’s email address or a ‘reply’ button) and our request fulfils the
requirement to provide a valid address.
Fourthly, our request described the information being requested. And used very similar wording to a successful request for a different cycleway.
Although we do not have to provide a postal address for the The Rotherhithe Area House Forum our postal is c/o Canada Estate Tenants Hall, Moodkee Street, SE16 7BB.
As part of an of the internal review appeal, please review the application of s12 to your our original request (FOI-1675-1920) to ascertain whether it was applied appropriately.
In addition, we wish to complain that TfL been unhelpful and obstructive.
TfL refused to provide
"(1) A list of meetings you have held or attended with Southwark Council, Southwark council councillors, property developers or their representatives" on grounds of time/cost.
Responding to that, on 18 September, we asked "Nethertheless, thank you for informing that you hold the information and that you have identified 6-8 members of staff from the Cycleway 4 project team who have potentially had direct liaison with the Council and others over the three years in question. Is it 6,7 or 8? And how do you wish us to refer to them? Can we have their names to help narrow the request?"
You response was to obstruct and delay using section 8 of the FOI Act inappropriately causing further delay.
You have refused to assist by looking at information provided by Southwark Council and that provides some of the information we requested from you.
Our original request was based on a very similar successful request made through this system by another requestor for a different cycleway and that was treated very differently indeed showing inconsistency in how you handle requests.
We would to make progress with this request and start to access information as soon as possible.
Delay in responding to this request has already obstructed us commenting on the proposals for the Rotherhithe Movement Plan - consultation now closed - and TfL is very much involved with Southwark Council is that scheme.
Yours sincerely,
Rotherhithe Area Housing Forum

Please note:
The Rotherhithe Area Housing Forum is one of Southwark Council’s principal advisory bodies on housing and related issues in the Rotherhithe Area. The Forum has the function and power to “comment on any planning and licensing applications relating to the Area” [clause 2.1(vii)] We represent over 4700 homes and our delegates are independently elected by Tenants & Residents Associations across the Housing Area.

FOI, Transport for London

1 Attachment

Dear Sir/Madam

 

Thank you for your email outlining your 4 points concerning section 8 of
the FOI Act.  As advised in my email of 30 September I have only requested
confirmation of a name for correspondence, I have not disputed the clarity
of your original FOI request (FOI1675-1920), the fact that it has been
made in writing nor the communication method via What Do They Know. Com

 

I have attached a copy of your original request made through What Do They
Know (FOI-1675-1920) where you can see that no name has been provided as
you have stated below, only a signature of 'Rotherhithe Area Housing
Forum'.  Additionally, I have checked the full correspondence published on
What Do They Know and there is no other name provided.  If you are able to
provide a correspondence name I can continue to review the application of
s12 to as requested.

 

Regarding your response on the 18 September asking  "Nethertheless, thank
you for informing that you hold the information and that you have
identified 6-8 members of staff from the Cycleway 4 project team who have
potentially had direct liaison with the Council and others over the three
years in question. Is it 6,7 or 8? And how do you wish us to refer to
them? Can we have their names to help narrow the request?" This is being
dealt with as a completely separate new FOI request (FOI-1831-1920) and I
am aware that the case officer in charge emailed you on the 19 September
asking for clarification concerning the information that you require,
which has not been provided to date.

 

We are not trying to be being unhelpful or obstructive, we are simply
adhering to the Freedom of Information Act and what our obligations are
regarding the disclosure of information.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Emma Flint

Principal Information Access Adviser

FOI Case Management Team

Transport for London

[1][TfL request email]

 

 

show quoted sections

FOI, Transport for London

1 Attachment

Dear Sir / Madam,

 

Our Ref: FOI-1831-1920

 

Further to my e-mail of 19^th September 2019 (below), I am writing to
inform you that your request for information has been closed as we have
not received the clarification we asked for.

 

Any further correspondence we receive from you in relation to this case
will be treated as a new request.

 

Please note also that under section 8 of the FOI Act applicants must
provide a full name for a request to be valid.

 

Please see the attached information sheet for details of your right to
appeal.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

David Wells

FOI Case Officer

FOI Case Management Team

General Counsel

Transport for London

 

 

 

From: FOI
Sent: 19 September 2019 09:50
To: '[FOI #600213 email]'
Subject: FOI-1831-1920 - Cycleway 4 and Lower Road gyratory

 

Dear Sir / Madam,

 

TfL Ref: FOI-1831-1920

 

Thank you for your further email of 18^th September 2019 asking for
information about the Cycleway 4 project.

 

It is not entirely clear what information you are now seeking. Can you
confirm that your reframed request is to know how many times the leader of
TfL’s Cycleway 4 project team met with Southwark Council in 2017, 2018 and
2019? If so I will respond on that basis.

 

Please note that the 20 working day deadline for responding to your
request will depend on when we receive satisfactory additional
information to help clarify your request.

 

If we hear nothing further from you by 10^th October 2019 the case will be
closed and any subsequent response will be treated as a new request.

 

In the meantime, if you have any queries please do not hesitate to contact
me.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

David Wells

FOI Case Officer

FOI Case Management Team

General Counsel

Transport for London

 

 

 

show quoted sections

Rotherhithe Area Housing Forum

Dear TfL
The name "Rotherhithe Area Housing Forum" was clearly provided to you in the original request.
The attachment document clearly shows that.
We will be appealing to the ICO.
Yours ,
Rotherhithe Area Housing Forum