Dear Reading Borough Council,

Please provide me with the following information :

1. How many primary school children have Hurst Lodge School Yateley named in section I of their EHCP in the following academic years 2022-2023 / 2023-2024 / 2024-2025.

2. How many secondary (11-18) school children have Hurst Lodge School Yateley named in section I of their EHCP in the following academic years 2022-2023 / 2023-2024 / 2024-2025.

3. Please provide a copy of the service agreement contract between the LA and Hurst Lodge school regarding children placed there with EHCPs

Yours faithfully,

Jacqui Prentice

Dear Reading Borough Council,

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

Grounds for Review:
1. Service Agreement Contract – Misapplication of Section 40(2): The refusal cites Section 40(2) of the Data Protection Act, which applies to personal data of identifiable individuals. However, my request concerns a contract between two organizations (a Local Authority and a school), which is not inherently personal data.

- Public interest: The use of public funds for education warrants transparency, ensuring accountability in decision-making.
- Alternative approach: If any parts of the contract contain personal data, these could be redacted rather than rejecting the request outright.

2. Number of Children with Hurst Lodge Named in Section I – Unjustified “Low Numbers” Exemption: The refusal states that the requested information is exempt due to low numbers, but it does not clarify under which specific exemption this decision was made. My understanding is that numerical data is only withheld if disclosure could reasonably lead to identification of individuals, which does not appear to be a valid concern in this case.
-No risk of identification: Given the overall number of children with EHCPs in RBC, disclosing the number of pupils placed at Hurst Lodge would not make individuals identifiable.
-ICO guidance on small numbers: The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) advises that data should only be withheld if the risk of identification is real and significant.
- Possible anonymization: If the concern is about identification, the LA could consider aggregating figures (e.g., providing a range rather than an exact number) instead of a full refusal.

Request for Action: I request an internal review of this decision, with a clear justification for:
-How the service agreement contract falls under Section 40(2) rather than being a publicly accessible document.
-The specific exemption used for withholding pupil numbers, and an explanation of how disclosure would lead to identification in the context of the broader EHCP population in Reading.
- Whether alternative solutions (e.g., redaction or data aggregation) were considered before rejecting my request.

I appreciate your time in reviewing this request and look forward to your response within the statutory timeframe.

Yours sincerely,
Jacqui Prentice