July 2017:Warwickshire:New Road: Stoneleigh, Crackley Gap, Kirby Corner, A452, A46

The request was refused by Warwickshire County Council.

FOI Department
Warwickshire County Council

Dear Sirs,

It was revealed in February 2016 that it is intended that the A46 Stoneleigh junction will be enlarged to create an interchange roundabout with two bridges over the A46. It is intended that a new major road will continue from there to Warwick University and from there continue to join the A452 Balsall Common road passing along the route of HS2 to form a road link to the NEC and Birmingham Airport. Clarification of the detailed route options under consideration has not been provided.

Summary information that records no more than that previously placed in the public domain about the road proposal has recently been placed on the Warwickshire County Council website at their URL.

http://www.warwickshire.gov.uk/a46linkroad
That information has given rise to the further article in the Coventry Observer that is online at the following URL.

https://coventryobserver.co.uk/news/majo...
I refer to the request for information that I submitted in April 2016 seeking information held by your authority in respect of this road. The request and responses is on line at this link:

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

A follow up and meta-request was submitted on the 12th July 2017

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

The initial request was in the following terms

“Please provide all information that you hold relating to such a potential new road development. This would include any reports, plans, cost-benefit analysis and possible route option information. This will include the documentation within which the claimed merits of such a road have been “identified”, and any evidence claimed to substantiate such merits. The information may be held independently by the authority or will be included in communications to or from other public agencies.”

The request falls under the provisions of the environmental information regulations and the authority's failure to provide the requested information is the subject of a complaint to the Information Commissioner.

In response to a parallel complaint, after substantial delay, Warwick District Council eventually provided records of several meetings over the period from 30 June 2015 to 08 March 2016. The group is identified as the “A46 Central Area Working Group” and includes representatives from several public authorities. Your authority appears to be represented on that group, but otherwise it is likely that you hold communications arising from the activity of that group.

I have temporarily placed those documents on line at the following link

https://1drv.ms/b/s!AoEjYhIga9p_g6ZFwq4A...

As those documents have been published under the EIRs, Warwick District Council should be making them accessible on their own website.

These meeting records confirm a deliberate strategy to keep information out of the public domain.

The meeting records further indicate an otherwise unpublished proposal to extend the new road with a road development from the A45/A46 roundabout near Coventry airport, to the A46 Stoneleigh roundabout. Particularly, on the 16th December 2015, it is reported that there is a “Long Term vision” that is “compatible with expressway vision from Tollbar across airport to north of runway, south of Baginton and Finham to new junction below Stoneleigh.”

The outstanding requirement is for publication of the information now held that relates to any and all of the route options for this road new road proposal.

I am therefore now re-submitting my request in the same terms as above.

To the extent that the information was held at the time of my earlier request, I anticipate that is publication will be mandated by the information Commissioner. Even now, I urge that the authority stops prevaricating and publishes that information and ceases the avoidable waste of time for the office of the information Commissioner.

The passage of time further weakens the already dubious claimed engagement of the exemptions that have been previously claimed in this matter. In addition, the passage of time further erodes the public interest arguments claimed in support of withholding information.

On that basis, this request now should be regarded as a request that includes the previously requested but withheld information in addition to the information falling under the terms of the request that has come to be held by the authority subsequent to my previous request.

Please note that this request is also being submitted via the “whatdotheyknow.com” website where it will be publically accessible. To ensure that your responses appear correctly on that site, please ensure that you use the newly supplied email address from which you receive this request.

Yours faithfully,

Dr Paul Thornton

 
Information request
Our reference: 2620230

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

 
Dear Dr Thornton
 
Environmental Information Regulations 2004
 
Thank you for your request for information that was received on 7 July
2017.
 
We are dealing with your request under the Environmental Information
Regulations 2004 and we aim to send a response by 4 August 2017.
 
In some case, a fee may be payable. If we decide a fee is payable, we will
send you a fee notice and we will require you to pay the fee before
proceeding with your request.
 
The Environmental Information Regulations 2004may restrict the release of
some or all of the information you have requested. We will carry out an
assessment and if any exceptionsapply to some or all of the information
then we might not provide that information to you. We will inform you if
this is the case and advise you of your rights to request an internal
review and to complain to the Information Commissioner's Office.
 
We will also advise you if we cannot provide you with the information
requested for any other reason together with the reason(s) why and details
of how you may appeal (if appropriate).
 

 Kind regards

Julie Seymour
Team Leader

Community Services, Customer & Information Services
Communities Group
PO Box 43
Barrack Street
Warwick
CV34 4SX
Tel: 01926 412837

 

 
NOTE: Please do not edit the subject line when replying to this email.

Dear Dr Thornton,

I am writing to ask you to clarify your request for information. Your
request is as follows:

Please provide all information that you hold relating to such a potential
new road development (A46 Stoneleigh junction). This would include any
reports, plans, cost-benefit analysis and possible route option
information. This will include the documentation within which the claimed
merits of such a road have been 'identified', and any evidence claimed to
substantiate such merits. The information may be held independently by the
authority or will be included in communications to or from other public
agencies.

The County Council has previously received information requests from you
that are substantially similar to the above request:

Ref. 1389328

Under the provisions of the Section 5 of the Environmental Information
Regulations, please provide all information that held by Warwickshire
County Council, particularly the Highways Department, relating to such a
potential new road development. This would include any reports, plans,
cost-benefit analysis and possible route option information. This will
include the documentation within which the claimed merits of such a road
have been "identified", and any evidence claimed to substantiate such
merits. The information may be held independently by the council or will
be included in communications to or from other public agencies.

This request was refused with reference to regulation 12(4)(d); the
refusal was upheld by an internal review, and this request is currently
being considered by the Information Commissioner’s Office.

Ref. 1613728

(i) I believe Warwickshire County Council must hold information that falls
within the terms of my previous request that falls outwith the exemption
that Ms Wells claims. I refer particularly  to the communications between
Warwickshire County Council and the other public authorities that
accompanied the material that she regards as falling under EIR12(4)(d). As
a minimum, I would have expected to receive copies of those communications
- I presume emails - with the exempted information redacted. (ii) Please
regard this as a new request for that covering correspondence.
Otherwise and finally,  please provide me with copies of any information
WCC holds that relates to, or was generated in the course of, the creation
of the response to 1. that previous enquiry or 2. any of the other
parallel enquiries that I submitted to other public authorities for the
same information. This will include copies of communications between your
authority and any other authority.

Part (i) of this request was refused with reference to regulation
12(4)(b). The County Council disclosed the information requested under
part (ii). An internal review concluded that the request should have been
considered as part of the internal review for 1389328 and not as a new
request; the application of the exemption was not commented on.

Ref. 1962728

Given the passage of time since my original request, it is appropriate for
me to initiate a resubmission of my request as a new request under the
EIRs in the same terms. i.e. please provide all information that you hold
relating to the potential new road development linking the A46 Stoneleigh
junction with Kirby Corner and subsequently to the A452 or A45. 
This would include any reports, plans, cost-benefit analysis and possible
route option information. A copy of the bid submission referred to by
Councillor Mobbs would fall within the terms of this request. 
The passage of time means that new finished documents will have been
created by or provided to your council since the time of my initial
request submission on the 1st April 2016.

As previously, the substantive request was refused with reference to
regulation 12(4)(d), However, a link to some information that had been
made available on Warwick District Council’s website was provided.

Please be advised that the County Council’s current understanding of your
most recent request (ref. 2320230) is that it is a repeat of your April
2016 request (ref. 1389328) in terms of the information you wish to
receive; we believe that you want that information for both the dates of
the old request and from the date that the County Council made a decision
on your first request (28 April 2016) to the date of this current request.

I would be grateful if you would respond to this email to either (a)
confirm that the County Council’s understanding of your request is
correct, or (b) to clarify the information you are requesting and the time
period to which it pertains.

Yours sincerely,

Amy Hardiman

Customer Liaison Manager

Amy Hardiman
Customer Liaison Manager
Warwickshire County Council

Information request your reference: 2620230

Dear Ms Hardiman,

Thank you for your email of the 27th July 2016.

My request is in the same terms as my April 2016 request (ref. 1389328) as follows “Please provide all information that you hold relating to such a potential new road development. This would include any reports, plans, cost-benefit analysis and possible route option information. This will include the documentation within which the claimed merits of such a road have been “identified”, and any evidence claimed to substantiate such merits. The information may be held independently by the authority or will be included in communications to or from other public agencies.”

As such, information that fell under the terms of the April 2016 request, at that time, will also fall under the terms of this new request.

Similarly, information that fell under the terms of my later request submitted on the 21st June 2016 (your ref 1613728) will also fall under the terms of this new request.

There will be further information that falls under the terms of the new request now that has been generated or come into the holding of the authority subsequent to the earlier requests.

As I observed previously, the passage of time (and so the publication of some information) further weakens the already dubious claimed engagement of the exemptions that have been previously claimed in this matter. In addition, the passage of time further erodes the public interest arguments claimed in support of withholding the information.

Clearly, I am not requesting re-publication if some of the information has already been placed in the public domain. My request makes you aware of such information of which I have knowledge. Your assistance in identifying any further information that falls under my request and has already been published otherwise would be required.

Particularly, the published material I have seen lacks information about the route options that have been considered for phase 3 of the road proposal. The entire scheme is dependent on that information so options must have been considered and that information must be held. That information should be readily accessible and easily identified. As such, those focused documents can be promptly published as an initial, preliminary and prompt component of your response to my request.

Yours sincerely,

Dr Paul Thornton

Dear Dr Thornton,
 
Thank you for responding to my email. Your clarifying comments will be
considered and a response will be made to your request in due course.
 
Yours sincerely,
 
Amy Hardiman
Customer Liaison Manager

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

Amy Hardiman
Customer Liaison Manager
Warwickshire County Council

Information request your reference: 2620230

Dear Ms Hardiman,

Thank you for your email of the 27th July 2016.

My request is in the same terms as my April 2016 request (ref. 1389328) as
follows “Please provide all information that you hold relating to such a
potential new road development. This would include any reports, plans,
cost-benefit analysis and possible route option information. This will
include the documentation within which the claimed merits of such a road
have been “identified”, and any evidence claimed to substantiate such
merits. The information may be held independently by the authority or will
be included in communications to or from other public agencies.”

As such, information that fell under the terms of the April 2016 request,
at that time, will also fall under the terms of this new request.

Similarly, information that fell under the terms of my later request
submitted on the 21st June 2016 (your ref 1613728) will also fall under
the terms of this new request.

There will be further information that falls under the terms of the new
request now that has been generated or come into the holding of the
authority subsequent to the earlier requests.

As I observed previously, the passage of time (and so the publication of
some information) further weakens the already dubious claimed engagement
of the exemptions that have been previously claimed in this matter. In
addition, the passage of time further erodes the public interest arguments
claimed in support of withholding the information.

Clearly, I am not requesting re-publication if some of the information has
already been placed in the public domain. My request makes you aware of
such information of which I have knowledge. Your assistance in identifying
any further information that falls under my request and has already been
published otherwise would be required.

Particularly, the published material I have seen lacks information about
the route options that have been considered for phase 3 of the road
proposal. The entire scheme is dependent on that information so options
must have been considered and that information must be held. That
information should be readily accessible and easily identified. As such,
those focused documents can be promptly published as an initial,
preliminary and prompt component of your response to my request.

Yours sincerely,

Dr Paul Thornton

show quoted sections

 
Information request
Our reference: 2620230

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

 
Dear Dr Thornton
 
Environmental Information Regulations 2004
 
I am writing to advise you that we are unable to provide you with a
response to your recent request today.  Please accept our apologies for
this delay.
 
The relevant case officers are currently on anuual leave and also, we are
still reviewing the information held and considering our response.
 
We will endeavour to provide you with a response by 18 August 2017.
 
Yours Sincerely
 
Julie Seymour
Freedom of Information Team
Customers & Information Services
Communities Group
PO Box 43
Barrack Street
Warwick
CV34 4SX
Tel: 01926 412837

 

 
NOTE: Please do not edit the subject line when replying to this email.

1 Attachment

 
Information request
Our reference: 2620230

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

Please see attached our response to your information request.

Yours sincerely,

Community Services, Customer & Information Services
Communities Group
PO Box 43
Barrack Street
Warwick
CV34 4SX
Tel: 01926 412837

 

Ms Amy Hardiman,
Customer Liaison Manager
Warwickshire County Council

By email via “whatdotheyknow.com”
Your ref: 2620230

Dear Mrs Hardiman,

Thank you for your letter of the 25th August 2017. I am sorry that you continue to perceive my request as unclear. Perhaps you could clarify your difficulty in interpreting it? You do however appear to have documented it correctly.

I note your claim that EIR Section 12(4)(b) is engaged in respect of my request. I'm writing to request internal review of that decision.

Firstly, I would draw your attention to the very recent decision by the First Tier Tribunal in an appeal which I brought against a decision by the Information Commissioner in respect of the same EIR sub section. The appeal reference is EA/2016/0310 (22 May 2017) and is accessible at the following URL.

http://informationrights.decisions.tribu...

In the adjudication at paragraph 31, the Tribunal recognises the authority of the Aarhus Implementation Guide which states:

“Under article 4, paragraph 2, the volume and complexity of an information request may justify an extension of the one month time limit to 2 months. This implies that volume and complexity alone do not make a request “manifestly unreasonable".”

That analysis applies in this case and you have no other grounds for engaging the exemption.

It should be born in mind that in submitting the request, I am wholly blind to the scale of the information that you hold.

Notwithstanding that I do not accept the engagement of EIR12(4)(b) in this case, I am not insensitive to the workload that you now claim. It does however appear that the council is making compliance with my request much more onerous than it needs to be. I wonder if a substantial proportion of the amount of work claimed relates to the redaction of information that need not be redacted?

It seems that the scale of the task you describe arises from my use of the term “all information" in my request.

While the EIRs are blind to the motives of the requester, it may assist you to meet my requirements if I confirm that I am particularly now seeking clarification of the route options under consideration for the proposed roadway from Warwick University to the A45 and/or the A452.

I am also seeking clarification of:
a. the planning arrangements for this roadway,
b. the origin and perpetuation of the decision to keep those planning processes secret from the public,
c. when individual elected representatives were made aware of the planning process and proposals.
d. which individual elected representatives were so informed.

Your reply confirms that you have reviewed, identified and quantified the information that the Council holds that falls within the terms of my request. This will have been undertaken, in part, in respect of my previous appeal to the ICO. Against that background, it would be helpful (and consistent with EIR Section 9) if you would provide me with some clarification of the various documents that you hold that fall within the terms of my request along with your clarification of the workload involved in publication of each component. From that, we might be able to determine if a narrowing of the terms of my request would be appropriate.

Yours sincerely,

Dr Paul Thornton

Dear Dr Thornton,
 
Thank you for your email. Please be advised that your request for internal
review has been passed to the Legal Services team for consideration. Their
response will address all of the points raised in your email.
 
Yours sincerely,
 
Amy Hardiman
Customer Liaison Manager
Communities Group

Dear Dr Thornton

I have reviewed your email of 29 August 2017 and have noted that you have
asked for an internal review of the decision that the Council made on 25
August 2917, you have clarified your request made on 7 July 2017 and have
made a new request for information in the questions labelled a-d.

As you have clarified your request from 7 July 2017 the Council have
therefore not yet fully responded to this request and need to do so before
an internal review can be undertaken. In addition to this your request for
new information also needs to be considered and responded to by the
Council.

I therefore intend to review with the relevant officers at the Council
your new request for information listed in questions a-d and to review
your clarified request, that being the clarification “of the route options
under consideration for the proposed roadway from Warwick University to
the A45 and/or A452”. Should you not be happy with the response provided
to you in relation to this information you will able to request an
internal review which the Council will undertake.

As you are aware the Council continue to make information available to the
public on their dedicated website
[1]http://www.warwickshire.gov.uk/a46linkroad

The Council will endeavour to respond to your clarified request and your
new request for information within the next 28 days.

Kind regards

Emily Wells

Solicitor

Corporate Legal Services

Warwickshire Legal Services

Warwickshire County Council

Tel: 01926 412872

E-Mail: [2][email address]

[3]www.warwickshire.gov.uk

References

Visible links
1. http://www.warwickshire.gov.uk/a46linkroad
2. mailto:[email address]
3. http://www.warwickshire.gov.uk/

Emily Wells
Solicitor
Corporate Legal Services
Warwickshire Legal Services
Warwickshire County Council

Dear Ms Wells,

Thank you for your email of the 20th September 2017 via the “whatdotheyknow.com” system in respect of my request submitted on the 7th July 2017, your reference 2620230

The observations I made on the 29th August 2017 provide a prioritisation for some components of the information that fell under the terms of my enquiry of the 7th July 2017. Such prioritisation might, possibly, provide sufficient information for my needs. But, there was no further additional or “new” information requested in my email of the 29th August 2017. The prioritised information, including that listed under (a) to (d), is entirely included within the terms of the information request of the 7th July. The terms of my request of the 7th July persist unamended. My message of the 29th August 2017 was not a “new request”. The council rejected my request on flawed grounds and my email of the 29th August was clearly a request for internal review of that decision.

Therefore, my observations do not provide for the further 28 day extension, from the 20th September, that you claim for the council to provide a response to my request for internal review. Particularly, I do not accept that the delays permitted under EIR 9(4) can be engaged. But even if Section 9(4) could be invoked, this would only allow for a maximum delay of 20 working days from the 29th August 2017, and even then, the “as soon as possible” requirement should have required an earlier response. In short, under all circumstances the response should be required this week.

Your further suggestion that, if you continue to withhold the information at the end of your proposed 28 day period, I might only then be able to request a further internal review is similarly not consistent with the legislation.

Prevarication, particularly in the circumstances of this request, is as much a denial of environmental entitlements as a complete with holding of the information.

It is appropriate at this juncture for me to draw your attention to information that has been newly published in response to a parallel enquiry that I submitted to Warwick District Council, and that is on line at the following URL:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/j...

Clearly, I do not now require re-publication of the same information by Warwickshire County Council.
It is however apparent that there is important material referenced within this new publication that has not yet been published. It may be that such information is not held by Warwick District Council but is held by Warwickshire County Council. Such information falls under the terms of my request. Any claim of a limited residual public interest in withholding that information is now wholly eroded.

I shall be further appealing to the Information Commissioner in respect of the information that has again been withheld by Warwick District Council under the claimed engagement of EIR section 12(4)(d). That appeal will not simply be based on public interest grounds. The interpretation of that section such that documents that are finished might, none the less, constitute “material in the course of completion” is flawed, too broad, unsupported by the evolution of the legislation and contrary to the Aarhus Implementation Guide.

I hope that Warwickshire County Council senior officers and elected members will not seek to similarly hide their secret proposals from their residents, ratepayers and electors and the wider expert public.

Yours sincerely

Dr Paul Thornton

1 Attachment

 
Dear Dr Thornton
 
Please find attached letter from Samantha Amphlett, Solicitor which is
self-explanatory.
 
Kind regards
 
Jill Weir
Secretarial Team Leader
Warwickshire Legal Services

1 Attachment

Sent on behalf of Samantha Amphlett, Solicitor
 
Dear Dr Thornton
 
Please find attached letter relating to the above request.
 
Kind regards
 
Jill Weir