HIGHWAY Obstructions at Moelfre, DMMOs - avoiding misconduct complaints.

The request was refused by Powys County Council.

Dear Powys County Council,

TWO Rights if Way officers recently curtly wrote:-

"As has been explained to you previously, byway LB645 is recorded on the
Definitive Map as ending just to the north of the location of the gates and
fence line shown. As such, Countryside Services does not consider the gate
or fence line to be obstructing a recorded public right of way.

Given that, at the current time, the new fencing and gate are a private matter. ....

If you believe there to be unrecorded public rights over a route at this location, then you are able to seek to record them. The procedures for applying for Definitive Map Modification Order were explained to you in the presentation given at the PBUG meeting on 29th October 2015. If you would like an application form and guidance notes to assist you in making an application, then we would be happy to send those to you."

This is consistent with several FOI responses, see for example 0184, 7014, 0047.

However it appears inconsistent with Statute.

Information Request 1 (14/2/17)
Who originally drafted or authored, who has viewed / was consulted on, and who approved the dual signed email?

Information Request 2
This seems to suggest as it is not on Definitive Map it is not a highway thus the obstructions are not a matter of concern to the HA. Would such an asinine view as that, be the considered position of PCC?

I regard the trite responses that as it was not claimed, nor on the Draft or Provisional maps as an irrelevance. It should be blatantly obvious that this is simply because it was, at the time, considered an all-purpose highway. Therefore what did the maps supplied to the parish or community show? What does the FP4 forms (or equivalent) state for the CRB / CRF / RUPP

Information Request 3
How is that squared with the 1980 HA s1? This states:-

[F14(3A) In Wales the council of a county or county borough are the highway authority for all highways in the county or, as the case may be, the county borough, whether or not maintainable at the public expense, which are not highways for which the Minister is the highway authority under subsection (1) above.]
Does PCC hold any information that disapplies this statute?

Information Request 4
Has PCC identified ANY of the 40,000 private roads, (as briefed to the House of Commons), as being highways (averaging some 150/200 yards in length), for the proportion that fall within Powys? Clearly such private roads, albeit they ARE highways, are remarkably similar to the road linking C1077 to LB645.

"This note explains what unadopted roads are and the problems and issues associated with them. It also explains how highways authorities can ‘adopt’ such roads and make them public highways.
There are two main types of unadopted or private road, those on new developments such as housing estates and those which, usually by historic accident, have existed for a long time, often since the nineteenth century. A Department of Transport survey in 1972 found that there were then approximately 40,000 unadopted roads in England and Wales, making up some 4,000 miles of road. No later survey has been undertaken but the figure is thought not to have changed much. The government estimated in 2009 that it would cost £3 billion to make up these roads to an adoptable standard.

The law on the maintenance and adoption of private roads in England and Wales is highly complex. It is contained in sections 203 to 237 (Part XI) of the Highways Act 1980. Briefly, a private or unadopted road is by definition a highway not maintainable at public expense. The local highway authority is therefore under no obligation to pay for its maintenance. Responsibility for the cost of maintaining a private road rests with the frontagers (the owners of properties with frontages on such roads). However statutory provision does exist for unadopted roads to be adopted and thus become highways maintainable at public expense. Statutory provision also enables the street works authority to require frontagers to put in hand repairs if there is a danger to traffic in a private street. Where the frontagers fail to act as required the authority may execute the repairs itself and recover the costs from the frontagers."

Information Request 5
What efforts and progress have been made by PCC to identify these ("usually by historic accident") missing highways?

Information Request 6
Has it been shown that this obstructed road (C1077-LB645) was NOT an agricultural improvement grant road?

Information Request 7
Do PCC admit that if this is a highway, of any type, whether a 'private road*' or not, as according to the HA80 s1 above, they are the highway authority for it? * refers to private roads as described to HoC above.

Information Request 8
What reply WAS given to the owner of Little Moelfre Farm (or to HSBC bank plc as mortgagee), on any property search regarding access over this road, (i.e. on Con29 as it is today) around 12/12/2006?

What would the reply be if a property search was requested today?

IF PCC were served a Notice under HA80 s56, would the answer be yes/no/defer to Crown Court?

A person (“the complainant”) who alleges that a way or bridge—
(a)is a highway maintainable at the public expense or a highway which a person is liable to maintain under a special enactment or by reason of tenure, enclosure or prescription, and
(b)is out of repair, may serve a notice on the highway authority or other person alleged to be liable to maintain the way or bridge (“ the respondent”) requiring the respondent to state whether he admits that the way or bridge is a highway and that he is liable to maintain it.

Information Request 9
As to the second part of the above quoted reply, suggesting a DMMO, is this because:-

A) it may take 20 years to determine? (Knowing most users will be dead or have lost interest by then)

B) it will be a way of wasting another £30k?

C) it may only end up as RB or perhaps FP?

D) PCC are scared of (or indebted to) the owners Lt Moelfre farm?

E) PCC do not appreciate that a DMMO is not the exclusive route to determine highway status?

Lord McIntosh for the Government stated in the House of Lords:-

"Clause 59 is concerned with the enforcement of the general duty on highway authorities under Section 130 of the 1980 Act to prevent, as far as possible, the rights of way for which they are responsible from being obstructed.

The courts have held that the duty under Section 130 applies only if there is no serious dispute that the particular way is a highway. I refer to R v Lancashire County Council, ex parte Guyer [1980]. That is why Clause 59 prevents the magistrates' court making an order if it is persuaded that there is a serious dispute as to the status of a way.

On the other hand, Section 56 provides a means for deciding the issue of whether a way is a highway. Under Section 56 such cases go straight to the Crown Court for resolution and the enforcement of the duty to repair is not conditional on there not being a dispute about the status of the way. I am sorry about the double negative but the enforcement is not conditional on there not being a dispute. The amendment would not remove the provision for applications to be made to the Crown Court but would simply prevent the court from doing a job which Section 56 specifically assigns to it. ...

Definitive maps were not conceived of as the exclusive route to establish the existence or non-existence of a highway. They are not conclusive of what is not shown in them and individuals, for example, are still entitled to apply for a declaration as to the existence of a highway."

Information Request 10
Is this road simply regarded as being in private ownership (which you will doubtless agree has no bearing on public rights), or is 'seriously disputed'? If so, when did PCC become aware it was 'seriously disputed', and were they at the time, aware of many years of public user?

Clearly there are more practical ways to establish highway status in this case than by a DMMO, and uphold their DUTY Economically, Effectively, Efficiently.

Yours faithfully,

Chris Marsden

Freedom of Information Queries (CSP - Generic), Powys County Council

 

Cyfarwyddwr Strategol: Rheoli Gwybodaeth/
Adnoddau
Information Compliance
Strategic Director: Resources
Neuadd Y Sir / County Hall
David Powell
Spa Road East

Llandrindod Wells

Powys LD1 5LG
  If calling please ask for / Os yn galw
gofynnwch am
 
 
 
Tel / Ffôn:  01597 82 7543         
 
Fax / Ffacs:  01597 82 6215      
 
Email/Llythyru electronig:
  [1][Powys County Council request email]

Our ref / Ein cyf:  F2017-200

Date / Dyddiad: 15/02/2017  

 

 

Request Accepted

 

FREEDOM of INFORMATION ACT 2000

Reference No: F2017/0200

 

Dear Mr. Marsden

 

Thank you for your request for information, received at this office on 
15/02/2017, in which you requested details of the following:

 

Moelfre DMMO        

 

The above is a summary of your request. The full details of the
information sought is provided to the officer to whom the request is
tasked.

 

Your request will now be considered and you will receive a response within
the statutory timescale of 20 working days as defined by the Act, subject
to the information not being exempt or containing a reference to a third
party. In some circumstances Powys County Council may be unable to achieve
this deadline. If this is likely you will be informed and given a revised
time-scale at the earliest opportunity.

 

There may be a fee payable for the retrieval, collation and provision of
the information you request. If this is the case you will be informed and
the 20 working day timescale will be suspended until we receive payment
from you. If you choose not to make a payment then your request will
remain unanswered.

 

Some requests may also require either full or partial transference to
another public authority in order to answer your query in the fullest
possible way. Again, you will be informed if this is the case.

 

The due date for responding to this request for information is 15/03/2017.

 

Should you need to discuss this further please contact the Information
Compliance Team on 01597 827543.

 

I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your interest in
Powys County Council.

 

Yours sincerely,

Carl Bryden

 

Information Compliance Officer

 

 

show quoted sections

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[Powys County Council request email]

Freedom of Information Queries (CSP - Generic), Powys County Council

Cyfarwyddwr Strategol: Rheoli Gwybodaeth/
Adnoddau
Information Compliance
Strategic Director: Resources
Neuadd Y Sir / County Hall
David Powell
Spa Road East

Llandrindod Wells

Powys LD1 5LG
  If calling please ask for / Os yn galw
gofynnwch am
 
 
 
Tel / Ffôn:  01597 82 7543         
 
Fax / Ffacs:  01597 82 6215      

Email/Llythyru electronig:
[1][Powys County Council request email]

Our ref / Ein cyf:  0200

Date / Dyddiad:   13/03/17

 

Reference No: F2017-0200

 

 

Dear Mr Marsden

 

Thank you for your request for information dated 14/02/17 concerning
Moelfre DMMO

 

This is to inform you that your request has been considered and I can
provide the following response:

 

The Request:

Information Request 1  (14/2/17)

Who originally drafted or authored, who has viewed / was consulted on, and
who approved the dual signed email?

 

Information Request 2

This seems to suggest as it is not on Definitive Map it is not a highway
thus the obstructions are not a matter of concern to the HA.   Would such
an asinine view as that,  be the considered position of PCC?

 

I regard the trite responses that as it was not claimed, nor on the Draft
or Provisional maps as an irrelevance. It should be blatantly obvious that
this is simply because it was, at the time, considered an all-purpose
highway. Therefore what did the maps supplied to the parish or community
show? What does the FP4 forms (or equivalent) state for the CRB / CRF /
RUPP

 

Information Request 3

How is that squared with the 1980 HA s1? This states:-

 

[F14(3A) In Wales the council of a county or county borough are the
highway authority for all highways in the county or, as the case may be,
the county borough, whether or not maintainable at the public expense,
which are not highways for which the Minister is the highway authority
under subsection (1) above.] Does PCC hold any information that disapplies
this statute?

 

Information Request 4

Has PCC identified ANY of the 40,000 private roads, (as briefed to the
House of Commons), as being highways (averaging some 150/200 yards in
length),  for the proportion that fall within Powys?  Clearly such private
roads, albeit they ARE highways, are remarkably similar to the road
linking C1077 to LB645.

 

"This note explains what unadopted roads are and the problems and issues
associated with them. It also explains how highways authorities can
‘adopt’ such roads and make them public highways.

There are two main types of unadopted or private road, those on new
developments such as housing estates and those which, usually by historic
accident, have existed for a long time, often since the nineteenth
century. A Department of Transport survey in 1972 found that there were
then approximately 40,000 unadopted roads in England and Wales, making up
some 4,000 miles of road. No later survey has been undertaken but the
figure is thought not to have changed much. The government estimated in
2009 that it would cost £3 billion to make up these roads to an adoptable
standard.

 

The law on the maintenance and adoption of private roads in England and
Wales is highly complex. It is contained in sections 203 to 237 (Part XI)
of the Highways Act 1980. Briefly, a private or unadopted road is by
definition a highway not maintainable at public expense. The local highway
authority is therefore under no obligation to pay for its maintenance.
Responsibility for the cost of maintaining a private road rests with the
frontagers (the owners of properties with frontages on such roads).
However statutory provision does exist for unadopted roads to be adopted
and thus become highways maintainable at public expense. Statutory
provision also enables the street works authority to require frontagers to
put in hand repairs if there is a danger to traffic in a private street.
Where the frontagers fail to act as required the authority may execute the
repairs itself and recover the costs from the frontagers."

 

Information Request 5

What efforts and progress have been made by PCC to identify these
("usually by historic accident") missing highways?

 

Information Request 6

Has it been shown that this obstructed road (C1077-LB645) was NOT an
agricultural improvement grant road?

 

Information Request 7

Do PCC admit that if this is a highway, of any type, whether a 'private
road*' or not, as according to the HA80 s1 above, they are the highway
authority for it?   * refers to private roads as described to HoC above.

 

Information Request 8

What reply WAS given to the owner of Little Moelfre Farm (or to HSBC bank
plc as mortgagee), on any property search regarding access over this road,
(i.e. on Con29 as it is today) around 12/12/2006?

 

What would the reply be if a property search was requested today?

 

IF PCC were served a Notice under HA80 s56, would the answer be
yes/no/defer to Crown Court?

 

A person (“the complainant”) who alleges that a way or bridge— (a)is a
highway maintainable at the public expense or a highway which a person is
liable to maintain under a special enactment or by reason of tenure,
enclosure or prescription, and (b)is out of repair, may serve a notice on
the highway authority or other person alleged to be liable to maintain the
way or bridge (“ the respondent”) requiring the respondent to state
whether he admits that the way or bridge is a highway and that he is
liable to maintain it.

 

Information Request 9

As to the second part of the above quoted reply, suggesting a DMMO, is
this because:-

 

A) it may take 20 years to determine?    (Knowing most users will be dead
or have lost interest by then)

 

B) it will be a way of wasting another £30k?

 

C) it may only end up as RB or perhaps FP?

 

D) PCC are scared of (or indebted to) the owners Lt Moelfre farm?

 

E) PCC do not appreciate that a DMMO is not the exclusive route to
determine highway status?

 

Lord McIntosh for the Government stated in the House of Lords:-

 

"Clause 59 is concerned with the enforcement of the general duty on
highway authorities under Section 130 of the 1980 Act to prevent, as far
as possible, the rights of way for which they are responsible from being
obstructed.

 

The courts have held that the duty under Section 130 applies only if there
is no serious dispute that the particular way is a highway. I refer to R v
Lancashire County Council, ex parte Guyer [1980]. That is why Clause 59
prevents the magistrates' court making an order if it is persuaded that
there is a serious dispute as to the status of a way.

 

On the other hand, Section 56 provides a means for deciding the issue of
whether a way is a highway. Under Section 56 such cases go straight to the
Crown Court for resolution and the enforcement of the duty to repair is
not conditional on there not being a dispute about the status of the way.
I am sorry about the double negative but the enforcement is not
conditional on there not being a dispute. The amendment would not remove
the provision for applications to be made to the Crown Court but would
simply prevent the court from doing a job which Section 56 specifically
assigns to it. ...

 

Definitive maps were not conceived of as the exclusive route to establish
the existence or non-existence of a highway. They are not conclusive of
what is not shown in them and individuals, for example, are still entitled
to apply for a declaration as to the existence of a highway."

 

Information Request 10

Is this road simply regarded as being in private ownership (which you will
doubtless agree has no bearing on public rights), or is 'seriously
disputed'? If so, when did PCC become aware it was  'seriously disputed',
and were they at the time, aware of many years of public user?

 

The Response:

 

Information Request 1  (14/2/17)

Who originally drafted or authored, who has viewed / was consulted on, and
who approved the dual signed email?

 

The email to which the requestor refers was sent to the Powys Byways User
Group on 19th January 2017. It was sent jointly by Sian Barnes and Nina
Davies of Countryside Services. No other information is held.

 

Information Request 2

This seems to suggest as it is not on Definitive Map it is not a highway
thus the obstructions are not a matter of concern to the HA.   Would such
an asinine view as that,  be the considered position of PCC? I regard the
trite responses that as it was not claimed, nor on the Draft or
Provisional maps as an irrelevance. It should be blatantly obvious that
this is simply because it was, at the time, considered an all-purpose
highway. Therefore what did the maps supplied to the parish or community
show? What does the FP4 forms (or equivalent) state for the CRB / CRF /
RUPP

 

We would remind the requestor that the purpose of the Freedom of
Information Act is to provide recorded information and not to pass comment
or provide a view unless that view is already recorded at the time the
request was received.   The documents relating to the production of the
Definitive Map are available for public inspection. To arrange this,
please contact Countryside Services to make an appointment.

 

Section 17 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 requires Powys County
Council, when refusing to provide such information (because the
information is exempt) to provide you the applicant with a notice which:

(a)  states that fact;

(b)  specifies the exemption in question and

(c)  states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption
applies.

In this instance the relevant exemption is Section 21 of the Freedom of
Information Act.

Section 21: Information accessible to applicant by other means -

(1) Information which is reasonably accessible to the applicant otherwise
than under section 1 is exempt information.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) -

(a) Information may be reasonably accessible to the applicant even though
it is accessible only on payment, and,

(b) Information is to be taken to be reasonably accessible to the
applicant if it is information which the public authority or any other
person is obliged by or under any enactment to communicate (otherwise than
by making the information available for inspection) to members of the
public on request, whether free of charge or on payment.

(3) For the purposes of subsection (1), information which is held by a
public authority and does not fall within subsection (2) (b) is not to be
regarded as reasonably accessible to the applicant merely because the
information is available from the public authority itself on request,
unless the information is made available in accordance with the
authority’s publication scheme and any payment required is specified in,
or determined in accordance with, the scheme.

In accordance with Section 21 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 I am
unable to provide you with the details you have requested

 

Information Request 3

How is that squared with the 1980 HA s1? This states:-(text continues)

 

It is not clear what information is being requested here, although it
would seem to be a request for an opinion, rather than relating to
documents held, we would refer you to the advice given above.

 

Information Request 8

What reply WAS given to the owner of Little Moelfre Farm (or to HSBC bank
plc as mortgagee), on any property search regarding access over this road,
(i.e. on Con29 as it is today) around 12/12/2006?

 

We are unable to find any search carried out on Little Moelfre, or the
surrounding area.  We have checked both on the address and spatially on
the digitised search areas.

 

 

What would the reply be if a property search was requested today?

 

CON29 question 2.2 currently asks: "Is any public right of way which abuts
on, or crosses the property, shown in a definitive map or revised
definitive map?" The reply to a CON29 search in which information about
public rights of way was requested would be based on the content of the
Definitive Map at the time of the search.

 

IF PCC were served a Notice under HA80 s56, would the answer be
yes/no/defer to Crown Court?

 

We cannot provide information about the response that would be provided in
the event that a notice were served under section 56 of the Highways Act
1980 - this would appear to be a request for an opinion, rather than
documents held and we would refer you to the advice given above.

 

Information Request 9

As to the second part of the above quoted reply, suggesting a DMMO, is
this because:-

A) it may take 20 years to determine?    (Knowing most users will be dead
or have lost interest by then)

B) it will be a way of wasting another £30k?

C) it may only end up as RB or perhaps FP?

D) PCC are scared of (or indebted to) the owners Lt Moelfre farm?

E) PCC do not appreciate that a DMMO is not the exclusive route to
determine highway status?

 

The Definitive Map Modification Order process is set out in law; it is a
well-established course of action for determining whether highway rights
do, or do not exist over a route.

 

 

 

We believe that this request is now complete and shall be closed
immediately. Should any further information be requested regarding this
topic, a separate request will need to be submitted.

 

We would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your interest in
Powys County Council.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Information Compliance Team

 

 

The supply of documents under Freedom of Information does not give the
person or organisation who receives them an automatic right to re-use the
documents in a way that would infringe copyright.

 

You are free to use any information supplied for your own use, including
for non-commercial research purposes. The information may also be used for
the purposes of news reporting. However, any other type of re-use, for
example, by publishing the information or issuing copies to the public
will require the permission of the copyright owner.

 

The copyright of most of the information that we provide in response to
Freedom of Information Act requests will be owned by Powys County Council.
The copyright in other information may be owned by another person or
organisation, as indicated in the information itself.

 

For HMSO Guidance Notes on a range of copyright issues, see the Office of
Public Sector Information(OPSI) website.

[2]http://www.opsi.gov.uk/advice/crown-copy...

 

If you are dissatisfied with the service you have received in relation to
your request and wish to make a complaint, please contact Information
Management. Our complaints procedure is available on request or on our
website.

 

If you are still not satisfied following this, you can make an appeal to
the Information Commissioner, who is the statutory regulator. The
Information Commissioner can be contacted at:

 

Information Commissioner's Office

2nd floor

Churchill House

Churchill way

Cardiff

CF10 2HH

Tel: 029 2067 8400

Email: [3][email address]

[4]www.ico.org.uk

 

 

 

show quoted sections

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[Powys County Council request email]
2. http://www.opsi.gov.uk/advice/crown-copy...
3. mailto:[email address]
4. http://www.ico.org.uk/

Dear Freedom of Information Queries (CSP - Generic),

I do not see a reply to Requests 4-7?

Yours sincerely,

Chris Marsden

Freedom of Information Queries (CSP - Generic), Powys County Council

Apologies Mr Marsden

We should have advised that we were still awaiting a response from our Highways department on Questions 4-7 which have not yet been presented, and rather than hold the whole response up we thought that we should release what we had from Countryside Services. I do apologise for this omission. We will chase Highways again today.

Regards

Information Compliance Team

show quoted sections

Dear Freedom of Information Queries (CSP - Generic),

Thanks for update.

Yours sincerely,

Chris Marsden

Freedom of Information Queries (CSP - Generic), Powys County Council

Cyfarwyddwr Strategol: Rheoli Gwybodaeth/
Adnoddau
Information Compliance
Strategic Director: Resources
Neuadd Y Sir / County Hall
David Powell
Spa Road East

Llandrindod Wells

Powys LD1 5LG
  If calling please ask for / Os yn galw
gofynnwch am
 
 
 
Tel / Ffôn:  01597 82 7543         
 
Fax / Ffacs:  01597 82 6215      

Email/Llythyru electronig:
[1][Powys County Council request email]

Our ref / Ein cyf:  0200

Date / Dyddiad:   15/03/17

 

Reference No: F2017-0200

 

 

Dear Mr Marsden

 

Thank you for your request for information dated 14/02/17 concerning
Moelfre DMMO

 

We apologise for the delay in sending the response to the missing
questions, please now find below the responses:

 

The Request:

Information Request 4

Has PCC identified ANY of the 40,000 private roads, (as briefed to the
House of Commons), as being highways (averaging some 150/200 yards in
length),  for the proportion that fall within Powys?  Clearly such private
roads, albeit they ARE highways, are remarkably similar to the road
linking C1077 to LB645.

 

"This note explains what unadopted roads are and the problems and issues
associated with them. It also explains how highways authorities can
‘adopt’ such roads and make them public highways.

There are two main types of unadopted or private road, those on new
developments such as housing estates and those which, usually by historic
accident, have existed for a long time, often since the nineteenth
century. A Department of Transport survey in 1972 found that there were
then approximately 40,000 unadopted roads in England and Wales, making up
some 4,000 miles of road. No later survey has been undertaken but the
figure is thought not to have changed much. The government estimated in
2009 that it would cost £3 billion to make up these roads to an adoptable
standard.

 

The law on the maintenance and adoption of private roads in England and
Wales is highly complex. It is contained in sections 203 to 237 (Part XI)
of the Highways Act 1980. Briefly, a private or unadopted road is by
definition a highway not maintainable at public expense. The local highway
authority is therefore under no obligation to pay for its maintenance.
Responsibility for the cost of maintaining a private road rests with the
frontagers (the owners of properties with frontages on such roads).
However statutory provision does exist for unadopted roads to be adopted
and thus become highways maintainable at public expense. Statutory
provision also enables the street works authority to require frontagers to
put in hand repairs if there is a danger to traffic in a private street.
Where the frontagers fail to act as required the authority may execute the
repairs itself and recover the costs from the frontagers."

 

Information Request 5

What efforts and progress have been made by PCC to identify these
("usually by historic accident") missing highways?

 

Information Request 6

Has it been shown that this obstructed road (C1077-LB645) was NOT an
agricultural improvement grant road?

 

Information Request 7

Do PCC admit that if this is a highway, of any type, whether a 'private
road*' or not, as according to the HA80 s1 above, they are the highway
authority for it?   * refers to private roads as described to HoC above.

 

The Response

 

Information Request 4

PCC is aware of private roads across the area but has not carried out an
exercise to identify the proportion in Powys that relate to the 40,000 in
the Department of transport survey in 1972.

 

Information Request 5

PCC reviews such missing highways on a needs basis as routes that may fall
into this category are identified.  The priority for review will depend on
a range of factors including identified evidence and available resource.

 

Information Request 6

No evidence has been identified or supplied to enable this to be shown. 
Some agricultural improvement grant records have been viewed but nothing
has been identified relating to this section.

 

Information request 7

No. PCC are not the highway authority for "any type" of highway within its
administrative boundaries.

 

 

 

We believe that this request is now complete and shall be closed
immediately. Should any further information be requested regarding this
topic, a separate request will need to be submitted.

 

We would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your interest in
Powys County Council.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Information Compliance Team

 

 

The supply of documents under Freedom of Information does not give the
person or organisation who receives them an automatic right to re-use the
documents in a way that would infringe copyright.

 

You are free to use any information supplied for your own use, including
for non-commercial research purposes. The information may also be used for
the purposes of news reporting. However, any other type of re-use, for
example, by publishing the information or issuing copies to the public
will require the permission of the copyright owner.

 

The copyright of most of the information that we provide in response to
Freedom of Information Act requests will be owned by Powys County Council.
The copyright in other information may be owned by another person or
organisation, as indicated in the information itself.

 

For HMSO Guidance Notes on a range of copyright issues, see the Office of
Public Sector Information(OPSI) website.

[2]http://www.opsi.gov.uk/advice/crown-copy...

 

If you are dissatisfied with the service you have received in relation to
your request and wish to make a complaint, please contact Information
Management. Our complaints procedure is available on request or on our
website.

 

If you are still not satisfied following this, you can make an appeal to
the Information Commissioner, who is the statutory regulator. The
Information Commissioner can be contacted at:

 

Information Commissioner's Office

2nd floor

Churchill House

Churchill way

Cardiff

CF10 2HH

Tel: 029 2067 8400

Email: [3][email address]

[4]www.ico.org.uk

 

 

 

show quoted sections

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[Powys County Council request email]
2. http://www.opsi.gov.uk/advice/crown-copy...
3. mailto:[email address]
4. http://www.ico.org.uk/

Dear Freedom of Information Queries (CSP - Generic),

OBSTRUCTIONS TO MOELFRE CITY BOAT MC645
FOI 2017-0200

Can you help me understand this FOI reply?

This IS on the Statement to the Definitive Map. The MAP does have a short, perhaps 60 metre gap after running about 9km, before joining a District Road, as described in the Statement.

This road clearly IS a highway, when or if it is entered on the Definitive Map or the LoS it will not THEN become a highway, it will have been a highway since first dedicated time out of memory.

I can't put any construction on your reply that makes sense to me?

FOI 2017-0200 Information Request 7

Do PCC admit that if this is a highway, of any type, whether a 'private
road*' or not, as according to the HA80 s1 above, they are the highway
authority for it? * refers to private roads as described to HoC above.

The Response to Information request 7

No. PCC are not the highway authority for "any type" of highway within its
administrative boundaries.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/h...

HA1980 s1
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1980...

(3A)In Wales the council of a county or county borough ****are the highway authority**** for all highways in the county or, as the case may be, the county borough, ****whether or not maintainable at the public expense****, which are not highways for which the Minister is the highway authority under subsection (1) above.

(5)Subsection (3A) above is subject to any provision of this Act, or of any order made under this or any other Act, by virtue of which a council other than the Welsh council for the area in which the highway is situated are the highway authority.

Yours sincerely,

Chris Marsden

Freedom of Information Queries (CSP - Generic), Powys County Council

Dear Mr Marsden

Are you wanting an Internal Review into our initial response? If not then the response stands.

Regards

Information Compliance Team

show quoted sections

Dear Freedom of Information Queries (CSP - Generic),

Yes please. I do think the reply should be reviwed for clarity or accuracy.

Unless I am missing the subtly of the meaning, this reply seems to be contra to HA80s1 ss3A.

Yours sincerely,

Chris Marsden

Freedom of Information Queries (CSP - Generic), Powys County Council

Dear Mr Marsden

We acknowledge receipt of your complaint regarding the Information relating to "Moelfre DMMO". We regret that you have expressed dissatisfaction in the service provided by Powys County Council in respect of your recent request for information. Your complaint will be referred to the most appropriate individual for review, in accordance with the Council’s Freedom of Information Complaints Policy.

Powys County Council attempts to respond to requests for a review within 20 working days, however, this is not possible in all cases. We will endeavour to respond by 18th April 2017.

Yours Sincerely

Information Compliance Team

show quoted sections

Dear Freedom of Information Queries (CSP - Generic),

"We will endeavour to respond by 18th April 2017"

WHEN do you expect to respond?

Yours sincerely,

Chris Marsden

Dear Freedom of Information Queries (CSP - Generic),

Or, do you expect to respond?

Yours sincerely,

Chris Marsden

Freedom of Information Queries (CSP - Generic), Powys County Council

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Marsden

Please find attached the response to your request for an Internal Review on F2017-0200. We apologise for the delay in responding any inconvenience caused.

Regards

Information Compliance Team

show quoted sections