Representations made to TfL by RBKC and Westminster Councils concerning the junction of A3212 and Chelsea Bridge Road

Jim Killock made this Freedom of Information request to Transport for London

This request has been closed to new correspondence from the public body. Contact us if you think it ought be re-opened.

The request was successful.

Dear Transport for London,

Can you supply me with your correspondence made with the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea and Westminster Council in relation to the preparations of your 2015 design of the junction of A3212 and Chelsea Bridge Road.

I am specifically interested in anything they suggested about the safety features, capacity and potential acceptability of any approach made in the design, or any constraints they may have imposed due to their control of Chelsea Bridge Road itself, so that it is clear why TfL chose the design and whether it operated under any constraints from the local councils.

I believe their is a strong public interest in this information, as the design may have contributed to a cyclist fatality this week. While of course “policy formation” can serve as an exemption, as the policy has long since been formed, it should not need to apply in this case.

Yours faithfully,

Jim Killock

FOI, Transport for London

Dear Mr Killock

 

Our Ref:         FOI-1684-1718

 

Thank you for your request received  on 29 September 2017 asking for
information about the junction of the A3212 and Chelsea Bridge Road.

 

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

 

Your request will be processed by TfL, the Greater London Authority and
its subsidiaries to provide you with a response in accordance with the
Freedom of Information Act and our information access policy.

 

A response will be sent to you by 27 October 2017. 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

 

Gemma Jacob

FOI Case Officer

FOI Case Management Team

General Counsel

Transport for London

 

[3][TfL request email]

 

 

Dear FOI,

(FAO: Lee Hill)

I am replying on this thread to some previous correspondence to help people using WDTK to find the information more easily.

relating to you response yesterday, as below, viewable here: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/r... )

“To clarify on the basis for our decision, your request asked for the
following: “Can you supply me with your correspondence made with the Royal
Borough of Kensington and Chelsea and Westminster Council in relation to
the preparations of your 2015 design of the junction of A3212 and Chelsea
Bridge Road.”

“As the focus of your request was specifically the design of the junction
(as well as some wider implications based around the design), the panel
felt that including the word “design” in any search for recorded
information would be essential to collating the number of emails
potentially held in relation to your request. It would be difficult to
conclude that we had sufficiently located all information regarding the
design of the junction without using the term ‘design’ in our search.
However, as my response outlined, upon reviewing the results of this
search, it may also become apparent that further searches could need to be
conducted using different keywords and/or different archived email
accounts.

“The panel did consider the public interest in your request, particularly
in light of the incident you have referred to. However, it was felt that
the burden of locating, extracting and collating all information held
outweighed any benefit of providing this information. We expect it to be
very unlikely that the entirety of the information we hold is located
within the archived emails of just those initial ten email accounts and
the only way to ensure we have collated all information we hold that is
relevant to your request would be to widen the search further to all
archived TfL email accounts and, most likely, include additional keywords
that are more likely to locate information regarding ‘safety features’,
‘capacity’, ‘potential acceptability’ and ‘restraints’ which were also key
aspects to your request. This would clearly increase the number of emails
that we would be required to review but a number of hits was provided to
you to demonstrate that, even using what were considered to be restrictive
search terms, the volume of information we would need to review would mean
that Regulation 12(4)(b) applies.

“Our principal duty is to provide an effective transport service for London
and we consider that answering this request would have represented a
disproportionate effort. It would be a significant distraction from our
work managing the TfL network, requiring re-allocation of already limited
resources and placing an unacceptable burden on a small number of
personnel. However we do wish to clarify that this does not reflect a
conclusion that it has been your intention to deliberately place an undue
burden on our resources.

“I have run a provisional search based on the latest search terms you refer
to below using those same ten employees who are likely to hold information
and this search has produced 102 hits. To reiterate, a hit refers to an
email located by our search tool that potentially fits within the scope of
your request. These emails would each need to be manually reviewed to
determine whether they are caught by your request. Many of the hits are
likely to be not relevant, or duplicates, (due to emails being repeated
within email chains), as well as emails being forwarded internally for
discussion during this time period that contain a relevant email within
its email chain. Therefore the actual number of emails covered by your
request will be a sub-set of these hits.

“Whilst this number of results is clearly more manageable, we don’t
consider that the results of this search would have sufficiently covered
either your initial or revised request for “all correspondence with
Westminster Council in relation to the preparations of your 2015 design of
the junction of A3212 and Chelsea Bridge Road” and this is why the
exception was upheld in that instance.

“You are, of course, welcome to submit a new request using the terms
outlined in your email of 2 March and, as stated, we anticipate that this
is unlikely to raise the same concerns outlined previously.

“Please confirm whether you would like us to proceed on this basis and we
will log and process this as a new request. Please be aware that we will
not be working on your request until we have received your confirmation.”

I would like to confirm that I would like you to proceed by narrowing the search of correspondence to the terms "a3212" "Chelsea Bridge road" "CS8" "Chelsea Bridge", in the period 1 January 2012 and 31 December 2015, to Westminster City Council.

Yours sincerely,

Jim Killock

FOI, Transport for London

Dear Mr Killock

 

TfL Ref: FOI-4743-1718

 

Thank you for your request received by Transport for London (TfL) on 7
March 2018 asking for correspondence: I would like to confirm that I would
like you to proceed by narrowing the search of correspondence to the terms
"a3212" "Chelsea Bridge road" "CS8" "Chelsea Bridge", in the period 1
January 2012 and 31 December 2015, to Westminster City Council.

 

Your request will be processed by the Greater London Authority, TfL and
its subsidiaries to provide you with a response in accordance with the
Freedom of Information Act 2000 and our information access policy.

 

A response will be sent to you by 9 April. 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

 

Lee Hill

Senior FOI Case Officer

 

FOI Case Management Team

General Counsel

Transport for London

 

 

show quoted sections

FOI, Transport for London

Dear Mr Killock

 

TfL Ref: FOI-4743-1718

 

Thank you again for your request received by Transport for London (TfL) on
7 March 2018 asking for correspondence: I would like to confirm that I
would like you to proceed by narrowing the search of correspondence to the
terms "a3212" "Chelsea Bridge road" "CS8" "Chelsea Bridge", in the period
1 January 2012 and 31 December 2015, to Westminster City Council.

 

Unfortunately because of its complexity, we will be unable to resolve your
request within the initial statutory 20 working day deadline. This is
because we are still reviewing the large amount of material covered by
your request.

 

To enable us to fully consider your request, in accordance with the EIRs
we have had to extend the deadline for providing a response to 20 working
days from the date we received your request. The amended date for a final
response is now 7 May 2018. We are working hard to ensure that you
receive a response before this date. 

 

I apologise for the delay and any inconvenience this may cause you. If you
have any queries or would like to discuss your request, please do not
hesitate to contact me.   

 

If you are not satisfied with this response, please read the attached
help-sheet entitled ‘Your Right to Appeal’.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Eva Hextall

FOI Case Officer

 

FOI Case Management Team

General Counsel

Transport for London

 

 

show quoted sections

FOI, Transport for London

6 Attachments

Dear Mr Killock

 

TfL Ref: FOI-4743-1718

 

Thank you for your request received by Transport for London (TfL) on 7
March 2018 asking for correspondence.

Your request has been considered in accordance with the requirements of
the Environmental Information Regulations and our information access
policy. I can confirm we do hold the information you require. You asked:

 

I would like to confirm that I would like you to proceed by narrowing the
search of correspondence to the terms "a3212" "Chelsea Bridge road" "CS8"
"Chelsea Bridge", in the period 1 January 2012 and 31 December 2015, to
Westminster City Council.

 

We conducted a search of the relevant mailboxes for emails containing
those keywords that were sent to/from Westminster City Council. We then
reviewed the results to locate, extract and collate those emails which
were relevant to the junction of A3212 and Chelsea Bridge Road in any way.
Please find the results of this search attached, along with the associated
attachments.

 

Please note that in accordance with TfL’s obligations under the Data
Protection Act 1998 (DPA) some personal data has been removed, as required
by Regulation 13 of the EIRs. This is because disclosure of this personal
data would be a breach of the DPA, specifically the first principle of the
DPA which requires all processing of personal data to be fair and lawful.
It would not be fair to disclose this personal information when the
individuals have no expectation it would be disclosed and TfL has not
satisfied one of the conditions of Schedule 2 of the Data Protection Act
which would make the processing ‘fair’.

 

If this is not the information you are looking for, or if you are unable
to access it for some reason, please do not hesitate to contact me.

 

Please see the attached information sheet for details of your right to
appeal as well as information on copyright and what to do if you would
like to re-use any of the information we have disclosed.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Lee Hill

Information Access Manager

 

FOI Case Management Team

General Counsel

Transport for London

 

 

show quoted sections

 

References

Visible links
1. http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/about-tfl/