Dear Bradford City Council,

Within the meaning of Freedom of Information (FOI) and Environmental Information Regulations (EIR) requests, I request in the Public Interest that held by the Council in respect of the Obligation to Register within the meaning of the Reservoir Act (1975) a " Large Raised reservoir " of Cubic Capacity 25,000 m3 or more the Following information

I in public interest seek the Following Information which would be held by the Council for the Following Reservoirs understood to be Class A High Risk Large Raised Reservoirs of a cubic capacity likely in excess of 56,000 m3 held by the City of Bradford Metropolitan Council in close proximity 230 m of each other

Name Park Dam (aka Royds Hall Dam) at Grid SE 14814 28501 Abb Scott Lane
Name Harold Park Dam at Grid SE 14944 28926

• name of the reservoir
• grid reference -
• name and address of the reservoir owners or operators
• date construction was completed
• height of dam (the level in relation to the surrounding ground levels)
• level of the top of the dam (the level relative to the ordnance datum) & top water
level
• capacity of dam
• water surface area
• name and address of the panel engineers (In any Contracted Capacity not exempt as personal information but an obligate requirement )
• list of any certificates issued by panel engineers
• date when the next inspection is due including the frequency of inspection relating to A
High Risk Class A Large raised Reservoir
• Copy of the Emergency Flood Plan relevant to Both Dams It is a legal requirement for all undertakers to prepare an on-site emergency flood plan for all large raised reservoirs in England.
• The reservoir flood plan and flood map if held by the Agency for both Reservoirs identifying any longitudinal data or whether the data is solely or predictive modelling and on what Reservoir Capacity

Stating type of reservoir

• impounding (blocks the natural flow of a river or drainage from an area)
• non-impounding (filled by pumping water or by piped inflow of water)

The Panel Engineers Appointed Role in Relation to the Class A high Risk Structures Harold Park Dam and Park Dam ie The Type and Number of Engineers Commissioned or Chartered to Oversee associated with the defined Large Raised reservoir Supervising , Inspecting or Construction Engineer

if altered or modified

In the Public Interest as a material planning concern , copies of any Inspection, Reports , Certificates in particular required to be held and / or Construction or Alteration or Adaption to the Reservoirs in Particular Park Dam Park Dam SE 14814 2850 relevant to it and whether the Draw Down Valve is currently operational and that there is a defined concrete watercourse associated with Spillway Works circa 2010 removing water from the Dam Toe

Yours faithfully,

Colin Duke

EIR Request

Dear Ms Kauser

In the matter of your claim to ss 38 exemption In the first Instance please identify the Officer Delegated , within the meaning of the DPA (2001) arriving at such conclusion
I refer to the failure of “ The Council “ as is its duty to meet the Schedule of the EIR / FOI Act as required by law which has been referred to the ICO for determination.

For the purpose of Clarity I draw to the attention of the ICO the significance of withholding or delaying Material in the Public Interest and Safety that being relevant as a Material Planning Concern by withholding such information such as to influence a time critical outcome or decision

In the Matter of your Claim to ss38 Please provide your reasons to Justify its use and why you propose that it would take one month to evaluate

38 (1) Information is exempt information if its disclosure under
this Act would, or would be likely to-
(a) endanger the physical or mental health of any individual, or
(b) endanger the safety of any individual

In the first Instance

Meaning of “high-risk reservoir” Reservoir Act (1975)

(1) the appropriate agency EA ] may designate a large raised reservoir as a high-risk reservoir if—
(a) the appropriate agency]EA thinks that, in the event of an uncontrolled release of water from the reservoir, human life could be endangered, and

Where it is also the Duty of The LLFA – Lead Local Flood Authority to identify Flood Risk and Harm within the meaning of the Flood and River Act (2010)

In the Second Instance

In the matter of a proposed Development your assertion where there are no persons to endanger by way of disclosure is incorrect and irrelevant

In the Third Instance

It is not the disclosure of such information that poses Risk to the Public but its Non Disclosure , as result of The Council failing in its Statutory Duties , it being negligent not to provide the level of Risk such as to avoid it, therein being the Public Interest

In the Fourth Instance

I draw to your attention that which you are obliged to provide beyond all reasonable doubt ( Information to be given in English registers of large raised reservoirs)

The matter before you is an EIR , requesting , that which you are obligate in Law to provide as prescribed information within the meaning of the Reservoir Act (1975) expressly as amended 2013 Schedule 1. - The Reservoirs Act 1975 (Capacity, Registration, Prescribed Forms, etc.) (England) Regulations 2013 Schedule 1. – as follows

(2)It shall be the duty of each [ relevant authority ] to establish and maintain for their area a register showing the large raised reservoirs situated wholly or partly in the area, and giving the prescribed information about each of them; and—

(a)the register maintained by a [ relevant authority ] under this subsection and copies of it or a prescribed part of it shall be kept at such place or places as may be prescribed; and

(b)the register so maintained, and any copy required under sub-paragraph (a) above to be kept at any place, shall be available for inspection at all reasonable times by any person

PUBLIC INTEREST TEST

The request is made overtly in the Public Interest and reflects all the necessary duties, a Duty, under Regulatory Compliance and that required in Law to register such information under the Reservoir Act (1975) and to maintain separation on any Technical assessment. There is also a Duty of Care owed by the “ Council” .to ensure that information informs all existing residents in proximity of the relevant criteria ( requested , Eg Emergency Flood Plan , Safety Certification of the Reservoir . The request identifies whether the infrastructure is certified to be safe by competent Independent Civil Engineers It is not the disclosure of such information that poses Risk to the Public but its Non Disclosure , as result of The Council failing in its Statutory Duties , it being negligent not to provide the level of Risk such as to avoid it, therein being the Public Interest

Under the Openness & Transparency of Government Regulations it is in the Public Interest to provide all Material Planning Concerns as a matter of Public record . That the request is not exempt , is validated in the matter of a parallel request the RMA to Regulatory Management Authority ( Environment Agency – The Regulator on Compliance ) who released such information without issue s38 cannot be used to negate an obligate duty in Law under the Reservoir Act (1975) , to provide on request Prescribed Information expediently in the Public Interest
There is an overwhelming case for prompt and effective disclosure in the interest of safety

That it is a requisite duty of the LLFA Lead Local Flood Authority to avoid conflict of interest and maintain separation under the Flood & Water Act (2010) Flood Regulations (2009) by ensuring such information is available for public feedback & consultation

A duty is that which is required in law, Failure to undertake a duty whilst in Public Office is misconduct

Yours sincerely,

Colin Duke

Dear Kirsty Breaks-Holdsworth,

I refer you to the formatted version of this communication on the following link
see below

Abbreviation

AOD Above Ordinance Datum
BDS British Dam Society
BNG Biodiversity Index
BGS British Geological Society
CA Coal Authority
CMRA Coal Mine Risk Assessment
COMAH Control of Major Accident Hazards Regulations 2015
EA Environment Agency
EIA Environmental Impact Assessment
EIR Environment Information Regulations (2001)
FOI Freedom Informaation Act (2000)
HSE Health Safety Executive
LiDAR Light Detection and Ranging
LPA Local Planning Authority
LLFA Lead Local Flood Authority
LFR Local Flood Resilience
MIOS Measure Interest of Safety
MSN/L Main Sewer Network / Line
MWL Maximum Water level
NWL Normal Water Level
0W Ordinary Water Course
PFR Prescribed Form of Record
ARE All reservoir Panel Engineer
SUPE Supervising Engineer
SoS Secretary of State
COW Critical Ordinary Water Course
NPPF National Planning Policy Framework
RMA Regulatory Management Authority ( EA, YW etc)
ROW Rights of Way
SuDDs Sustainable Drainage Systems
YW Yorkshire Water

Legal Constraints

The Reservoir Act (1975)
Wibsey Slack Low Moor Act (1888)
Land Drainage Act (1991) as amended (2023 )
Flood & Water Management Act (2010) - LLFA Duties
Flood Risk Regulations (2009)
The Reservoirs Act 1975 (Capacity, Registration, Prescribed Forms) (England) Regs (2013)
The Civil Contingencies Act (2004)

Reference

The UK National Protocol for the Handling, Transmission and Storage of Reservoir Information and Flood Maps, 2018 UK Reservoir Safety Liaison Group). Version 2.4.5

Background & Justification & Context Of Request

I set out the Context of Request, being significantly relevant to the Balancng Test and any primary Legal Requirements around Prescribed Information given to be expected of the Owner & Operator of such Structures both within the meaning Generally of EIR (2004) as Environmental Information in addition to express Legal Requirements as that Prescribed . In the matter of two High Risk Large Raised Reservoirs and matters of Environmental Information relevant to Public Safety by way of material information , where the LLFA has obligate duty , to work with all Agencies , RMA’s and Communities in the identification of Site Specific Cumulative Flood Risk

The Reservoir Act Defines “High Risk ” given by RMA, The Environment Agency within the meaning of Reservoir Act (1975)
, ss 2(i ) To be in the event of an uncontrolled release of Water there would be the potential to cause Harm to Human Life .

I have been asked by the Local Community to provide an Independent Technical Report relevant to local residents and the impact of a significant (MAF) Proposed Development ( n=173 ) based on Established Fact and Observation of Fact. to ensure the Local Authority are investing and maintaining the reservoirs in question . In so doing, such a Report involved Site Inspections which Identified a number of concerns in the operation , management and maintenance of both Structures . Those concerns are multiple , potentially reflect , required Amendment to the PFR ( Age of Construction Park Dam, Unrecorded Alteration to Regulatory Watercourses , Spillway Modification Issues and potential pooling to the Toe Park Dam as a result of the maintenance concerns on the South Watercourse including the spillway channel and adjoinment to Field Drainage , Lack of Instrumentation Recording Catchment Dynamics and Water over The Top as well The Visit memorialized Upstream and Downstream Maintenance of Watercourses identifying Road Sludge Disposals causing local flash flood damage to properties, and accuracy of establishing the AOD on Artificial Ground – BGS Definition ) in respect of the accuracy of the EA LIDAR Modelling Maps , available in the public Domain , such as to accurately reflect Velocity , Extent and Depth in making a Site Specific Local Flood risk assessment. in addition to any required Emergency Flood Plan required to be given and disseminated within Law

For the purpose of clarity that environmental information has material bearing and is directly relevant to a development where proposed housing would be located and exist in close proximity within 9m of the Toe of a Dam one of two High Risk Large Raised Reservoirs , constructed circa 1850 , containing 91,000 m3 (and 66,750 m3 ) of water , located 10 m above the AOD of the site Contour in a Coal Authority Area of High Risk Unsuitable to Development where Ground Stability and proximity of 17 mines pose aggregated risk speaks for itself .

I note from the Councils Flood Risk Manager defers to the Public Interest Test conducted by the Councils Legal Department, to which has no legal authority to over ride the requirement to provide Prescribed Information as an Owner and Operator ,. I note the request to inspect the Register at any reasonable time in accordance with the Reservoir Act (1975) and to walk the site with the nominated Drainage Contact in order to establish the Upstream and Downstream Watercourses to be frustrated or denied contrary to the legal duty. Any member of the Public has a Right to Consult the Prescribed Information to ensure the Section 10 reports as summarized within the MIOS ( Minimum Interventions on Safety ) are in fact being implemented , as was the case in Todd Brook where the SupE Supervising Engineers Observations were not acted upon.

I note and thank you (KBH) for the attachments

17215 Reservoir Information EIR.doc

[ PFR is noted [ I flag potential comment to the PFR at ( 4) Date of Construction Park Dam pre-1850 (5) The method of measuring or estimating Volumetric Capacity Bathyscopic , Bathyscopic LIDAR , Plumb or Calculation Unclear (6) The Reported AOD in the light of Artificial Ground (BGS Definition ) Bearn at Harold Park / Mining Activity Abb Scott Lane as LIDAR errors ] Queries in alteration of Spillway and Watercourses etc

Harold Park Section 10 2016.pdf
Harold Park Section 12 2024.pdf
Park Dam Section 10 2024.pdf
Park Dam Section 12 2024.pdf

Response To Information Exception & Request To Internal review

Please find response and contention to your position on withholding and obstructing Environmental Information by way of claimed exemption(s) which are in fact statutory requirements unless otherwise justified or redacted by instruction from the Secretary of State

I note claim to exception and non disclosure and deal with claims to exception in two parts , in the principal context of A. The EIR

(2004) ss 12(5) (a) Exception

and

B ss38 FOIA (200) Exception

differing in, application and qualification to exemption and note your communication to confuse or misstate the legislative forms of the of EIR with FOI. For avoidance of doubt;

12(5)(a) EIR To which you rely upon

EIR (2004) 12 (5) (a), a public authority may refuse to disclose information to the extent that its disclosure would adversely affect—
(a)international relations, defence, national security or public safety;

and

ss38 FOIA (2001 ) (1) Information is exempt information if its disclosure under this Act would, or would be likely to—

(a ) endanger the physical or mental health of any individual, or
(b) endanger the safety of any individual.

which conflicts with a number of Substantive Primary Statutory Obligations and Duties to which you the Council as Owner and Operator of a High Risk Large Raised Reservoir, [ Reservoir Act (1975) ] , [ Flood & Water Management Act (2010) ] must comply thereby mitigating and avoiding flood by informing local residents such as to take any mitigating or remedial actions or preventing inappropriate development proximal to a high risk structure, which has the potential; to cause endangerment , The Reservoir Act (1975) being principally an Act of Regulatory Law ensuring the Safe Management and Operation of such structures , to which , you the Owner and Operator are not exempt

I read your principal claims to exception to be Grounds of Public Safety you the Owner & Operator of a High Risk reservoir have no grounds to circumvent Statutory Direction on Compliance as given in 12, 16, 20 National Policy and ss2 Reservoir Act (1975) .

The EIR (2004) require that a test of the public interest in disclosure be conducted before any exception is applied .

The Exception Test (EIR) sets a high threshold. must be more probable than not that the alleged harm would occur if the information were released. It is not enough to show that disclosure could or might have an adverse effect.
In the matter of exemption on the Basis of National Security by applying a Protocol to which you have selectively to interpreted and is not that of the relevant Statutory Instrument . The UK National Protocol for the Handling, Transmission and Storage of Reservoir Information and Flood Maps, 2018, UK Reservoir Safety Liaison Group). Version 2.4.5

I deal with your claim on exemption on both parts and your lack of detail on the Public Interest Test its Balancing Qualifying Exception or any Threshold or Preconditions required

A. Public Safety 12(5)(a) EIR

I respond as follows.

As owner and operator of a known High Risk Large Raised Reservoir you, The Council, are not exempt from Regulatory Compliance , within the meaning of the Reservoir Act (1975)

The Reservoir Act (1975) is a Statutory Instrument , principally an act determining the Safety , Maintenance and operation of reservoirs, made by Parliament that identifies two Actors The " Owner or Operator " of a High Risk large Raised Reservoir and the RMA - Regulatory Management Authority - namely The “ Environment Agency “ who enable Compliance to it. The Legal entity , Responsible for ensuring you , The Council , adhere to Regulatory Compliance in respect of the Maintenance , Management , Testing and Safe Operation of Reservoirs is the RMA – Regulatory Management Authority.

The Public Interest Test is in effect materially embedded in the Ambit of the Reservoir Act (1975) , a Statutory Instrument Balanced in the Interest of Public Safety in its prescribed form as a regulatory instrument and with other lawful duties given within Flood & Water Management Act (2010) amongst others

I draw to your attention the implications of withholding Prescribed information Materially relevant to the Safety , Operation and Maintenance of two Large Raised High Risk Reservoirs as given within the Meaning of the Reservoir Act (1975)
I note ss 12 (2), EIR , makes presumption in favour of disclosure

Requirement to Register and make available large raised reservoirs,

(2)(1) (2) * It shall be the duty of each [ the local authority ] to establish and maintain for their area a register showing the large raised reservoirs situated wholly or partly in the area, and giving the prescribed information about each of them; and—

(a )the register maintained by a [the local authority ] under this subsection and copies of it or a prescribed part of it shall be kept at such place or places as may be prescribed; and
(b) the register so maintained, and any copy required under sub-paragraph (a) above to be kept at any place, shall be available for inspection at all reasonable times by any person

Unless you , The Council or the Agency , have express Instruction form the Secretary of State such as not to provide such information , the Ambit of the Reservoir Act ( 1975) must be taken as given , such as to provide a Prescribed Form of record (PFR) and that which constitutes Environmental Information. It is not for the council as owner and operator to supercede the role of the SoS or grant itself exemption to Regulaory complaince

2(2A) Reservoir act (1975) ….If it appears to the Secretary of State that the inclusion of any information in the register maintained under subsection (2) above by the Environment Agency would be contrary to the interests of national security, he may direct the Agency not to include that information in the register……

The PFR as a contiguous record ensures that an owner and operator of a High Risk Large Raised Register complies with all lawful and safety requirements and are seen to so do Eg (i) that Annual 10 year Inspection are undertaken , (ii) where findings of Safety or made , that they are addressed in a timely intervention by way of MIOS – Minimal Intervention on Safety , and that (iii) prescribed Tests such as Scour or Draw Downs are made at an appropriate frequency and are fit for all emergency scenarios. (iv) That all Supervisory Panel observations are maintained and implemented (v) and that all records of Construction , Modification or adaption are recorded and maintained

In the case of Todd Brook Dam failure it was precisely the oversight in bridging the Statutory Inspection to the MIOS that caused a significant cause for concern

B. National Security 12(5)(a) EIR

I note your reference and reliance on unjustified risk on the grounds National Security and The UK National Protocol for the Handling, Transmission and Storage of Reservoir Information and Flood Maps, 2018 , which is not the Statutory Instrument & your limitted interpretation to the Protocol, UK Reservoir Safety Liaison Group). Version 2.4.5

I draw to your attention the limits of your authority. You the Owner and Operator of a High Risk Large Raised Reservoir , being Regulated , are not mandated to remove any Statutory Obligation on Prescribed Information , that being properly the role of the Secretary of State instructing through the RMA – Regulatory Management Authority to remove the obligation to provide Prescribed Information In so circumventing the position you the Owner and operator are acting ultra vires

2(2A) Reservoir act (1975) ….If it appears to the Secretary of State that the inclusion of any information in the register maintained under subsection (2) above by the Environment Agency would be contrary to the interests of national security, he may direct the Agency not to include that information in the register……

The obligation to Disclosure of Prescribed Information in the Act is de facto unless given to the contrary by the Secretary of State In detemining the Public Interest Test I draw to your attention to Para 12, 16, 20 of the National Protocol which you appear to have disregarded without justification

12. Reservoir legislation in the UK does not require the disclosure of information other than the information which is available on the public reservoirs registers – See Public Registers below

[16. National security should only be used as a reason for not disclosing information when deemed genuinely necessary, and retention or redaction of information must be justified. Adherence to this protocol maximizes the disclosure of information to the public, whilst maintaining control of sensitive information. Considerations in favour of and against disclosure cannot be prejudged; one size does not fit all. The public interest must be considered in relation to each specific case. There may be a need to know and a public interest in disclosure ]

20. Reservoir legislation requires that regulatory authorities maintain a register of certain information about regulated reservoirs and make this availablet o the public. The information to be contained in the public registers is prescribed in legislation. If information is requested that is held on the public register, then the requester should be informed of how to inspect or access the register. Aggregated public register information may also be released.

• It is clear what constitutes Prescribed Information within the meaning of the Reservoir Act (1975) .

• It is also clear from the National Protocol (2018) below that prescribed information on Public registers must be provided

• Having established what Constitutes Prescribed Information ( PFR) and what information must be provided , it is not for the respondent, an owner and operator of a High Risk Large Raised reservoir , to deny or circumnavigate the obligate responsibility in law it , by acting ultra vires .In accordance with ss 12 (2), EIR the presumption in favour of disclosure holds

The relevant person in this determination is the Secretary of State . A Threshold Test is provided to indicate that such infrastructure does not represent a Risk to National Security as implied

ss 38 of the FOIA Health & safety.

(1)Information is exempt information if its disclosure under this Act would, or would be likely to—
(a ) endanger the physical or mental health of any individual, or
(b) endanger the safety of any individual.

In the matter of EIR Request , there are no individuals in respect of a notional Proposed Development such as to endanger by the provision of Prescribed Information which you are lawfully obliged to provide and
The Councils use of ss38 as a qualified exemption is confused ., given the Requisite Direction and Duties of the Reservoir Act (1975) and Flood & Water Management Act (2010), Flood Risk Regulations (2009) , The Reservoirs Act 1975 (Capacity, Registration, Prescribed Forms) (England) Regs (2013), The Civil Contingencies Act (2004) Requirement to Prepare an Emergency Flood Plan and Communicate it.
In applying a s38 exemption due regard must be given to whether the same or similar information is already available in the public domain and whether the consequences of disclosure are more or less serious,

• The Classification of Reservoir as High Risk
• The Availability of Publicly Accessible Map Models on DEFRA and EA Website
showing Velocity , Extent and Depth on Reservoir Mapping Scenarios
• Public Registers , requiring the Prescribed Form of Record to be be given and made available by law

Likewise in respect of ss 38 FOIA this involves weighing up the risks to the health and safety of an individual against the public interest in disclosure, in all the circumstances the test must be applied on a case-by-case basis.
I also draw to your attention Schedule 3 of the Reservoirs Act

Reservoirs Act 1975: The Flood Plan (Reservoirs Emergency Planning) Direction 2021
Ministerial direction to undertakers in relation to large raised reservoirs in England has been issued under the authority of the Secretary of State for Environment,
Under the CCA 2004, it is a statutory duty to publish all or part of the community risk register, where such information would allow members of the public to mitigate the consequences of particular risks.

In a Nutshell the Council cannot omit or over ride Risk caused by any act or omission in the management , operation or maintenance of a High Risk Reservoir , or any duty required to mitigate , remediate or inform Public of Risk posed as per duty Civil Contingency Act (2004) Likewise if the Council chooses to increase the likelihood risk or harm by approving a development in the immediate path of a Reservoir then this work bench marks any such endangerment . In the matter of defining a “ Zone of Destruction “ , ( as Distinct from Reservoir Mapping , Velocity , Depth and Extent ) relevant to an inappropriate development , no mapping is required , to determine that in the event of an unseen breech both Property and Life would be at risk when sited 9 m from the toe of the Dam containing 91,000 m3 of water released with significant kinetic energy

Threshold Test

The reservoirs in Question (i) are Amenity Reservoirs (ii) Not a potable water supply and are a redundant Impounding basins collecting surface road run off (iii) are located in a rural Green Field Agricultural Setting (iv) are not SCADA Controlled (v) and does not pose a risk to any Major identified Infrastructure or is (v) and are of no strategic significance

In respect of Reservoir Mapping.

I note your implied view to Basarvo versus the ICO / EA , which is not applicable in the circumstance of this request , the latter part of your response to be contradictory and disparate . Reservoir Mapping is produced to clearly reflect the Depth, Velocity and Extent of Flooding under normalised Climatic Simulations, and is , as required , available in the Public Domain under the RMA’s Responsibility to consider all cumulative sources of flooding.

I note ss 12 (2), EIR , requires a presumption in favour of disclosure
Unless you , The Council or the Agency , have express Instruction form the Secretary of State such as not to provide such information , the Ambit of the Reservoir Act ( 1975) must be taken as given , such as to provide a Prescribed Form of record (PFR) that which constitutes Environmental Information

I note your reliance on that which is not the Statutory Instrument & your failure in interpreting the Protocol The UK National Protocol for the Handling, Transmission and Storage of Reservoir Information and Flood Maps, 2018, UK Reservoir Safety Liaison Group). Version 2.4.5and request for prescribed information . I draw to your attention relevant parts

12. Reservoir legislation in the UK does not require the disclosure of information other than the information which is available on the public reservoirs registers – See Public Registers below

20. Reservoir legislation requires that regulatory authorities maintain a register of certain information about regulated reservoirs and make this available to the public. The information to be contained in the public registers is prescribed in legislation. If information is requested that is held on the public register, then the requester should be informed of how to inspect or access the register. Aggregated public register information may also be released.

I note also your reliance on s38 of the Freedom of Information Act, to which you claim you have undertaken a Public Interest Test. I draw to your attention in respect of a Proposed Development has no residents ,

Balancing Test

The Reservoir Act (1975) is an Instrument of Regulatory Law ensuring Safe Operating Practice of all Reservoirs , requiring that All Owners and Operators of High Risk Large Raised reservoirs Register Prescribed Information in a Given Form ( Prescribed Form of Record) in the Interests of Reservoir Safety . The Flood & Water Management Act (2010) also provides additional duties to which the LLFA ( Lead Local Flood Authority ) as a Legal Entity , must comply including working with Members of the Public , Communities and Representative Organisations to eliminate all sources of site specific local flooding

Identifying & Distinguishing Risk

The Reservoir Act Defines “ High Risk ” given by The Environment Agency , within the meaning of Reservoir Act (1975) , ss 2(i ) To be in the event of an uncontrolled release of Water there would be the potential to cause Harm to Human Life .

That being widely given on Registers within the Public Domain

In the Public Interest Test , it is necessary to differentiate risk and the likelihood of it , as to how , when and where it arises .

The matter before the ICO is the withholding prescribed information falling within the meaning of the EIR (2001) , whether the regulated operator is acting ultra vires

It should be Noted that both structures are (i) Amenity Reservoirs and (ii) Reservoirs in Proximity to a proposed Development where LPA would place people in Harms way, for avoidance of Doubt any proposed development within 9 m of such structure containing 91,000 m3 water 10 m above the proposed site would fall within the Zone of Destruction , when , within the meaning of Planning Legislation other sequential sites are available

(i) The Level of Risk posed by two 1880 High Risk Reservoirs (as defined) would cause more harm by virtue of failure arising from Poor Maintenance Operation or lack of investment by the owner or operator and where the respondent , the regulated entity seeks ,
(ii) Climatic Events or Change causing local Cumulative flooding
(iii) Owner operator failing to maintain the Victorian Watercourses
Regulating Reservoirs Downstream.
(iv) Impounding Nature of the Reservoirs & downstream redundancy and whether in the light of further Upstream Developments the catchment would be over capacitated

The Implied Risk To National Security

The complainant submits in the specific circumstances of the request

A Threshold Test has been applied to The reservoirs in Question and concludes there is limited Risk or no to National Security

(i) are Amenity Park Reservoirs
(ii) Not a potable water supply and are a redundant Impounding basins collecting surface road run off
(iii) are located in a rural Green Field Agricultural Setting
(iv) are not SCADA Controlled
(v) and do not pose a risk to any Major identified Infrastructure or is (vi) and are of no strategic significance

Public Interest Test In Favour of Disclosure

In the matter of Balancing the Public Interest Test there are Significant and Objective reasons in favour of disclosure which outside general requirement ss 12 (2), EIR (2004), are given and required within the Prescribed Legislation. and Lawful Safety Requirements

The Ministerial Instruction of 2021 post Todd Brook requires ALL local authorities to create an Emergency Flood Risk Plan in relation to all High Risk Large Raised Reservoirs The Civil Contingency Act (2004) requires the dissemination of this information by way of publishing a community risk register

ss 12 (2), EIR (2004) Provides that presumption in favour of disclosing environmental information is maintained.

The balance in favour of Disclosure

In the matter of Public Safety and Local Site Flood Risk the presumption in favour of disclosure speaks for itself, Not disclosing Flood Risk or prescribed information relevant to it ( Velocity / Extent) would prevent the Public mitigating any Risk or Danger from it or exercising choice to avoid it .

In the making of a – PFR Prescribed Form of Record “ Any “ member of the Public at any reasonable time has the Right to consult registers as to confirm whether an Owner or Operator has in place an Inspection Certificate in Place , that any recommendation on Safety MIOS ( Minimum Intervention on Safety ) are being Implemented within the Schedule of the Act, in addition to ensuring Scour and Draw Down Testing is occurring at appropriate intervals and that the necessary on-site and off-site emergency flood plans are in place and are tested against all emergency scenarios to be fit for purpose .

Under the Civil Contingency Act (2004) , CCA 2004, it is a statutory duty to publish all or part of the community risk register, where such information would allow members of the public to mitigate the consequences of particular risks by virtue of “ Preparedness ”. Additionally Ministerial Order on the 2021 Flood Plan (Reservoirs Emergency Planning) Direction gave Direction to owners and operators of all High Risk Large raised reservoirs to put in place Emergency Flood Plans . A local Authority acting as Owner and Operator of a large Raised Reservoir cannot disingenuously engage exception or navigate exemption as an owner because it is a Local Authority

Furthermore I draw attention to that which the Owner & Operator has shown disregard and rely upon Sections 12, 16 and 20 of “ National Protocol “The UK National Protocol for the Handling, Transmission and Storage of Reservoir Information and Flood Maps, 2018, UK Reservoir Safety Liaison Group). Version 2.4.5
Impartiality & Bias

In the matter of consideration by the ICO , the complainant points out the propensity of bias and group think . Due regard should be given to any lack of impartiality or conflict of interest in the making of any test on Exception and whether a balanced and genuine view has actually been applied .

In the case of the

(i) Owner / Operator and LPA any presumption given in favour to inappropriate development . Such parameters are driver by s106 monies , political agendas and other factors . The Matter of Public Safety is paramount and it is overtly in the Public Interest to provide that requested from which an informed report and conclusion canbe objectively made

(ii) In the case of The RMA, The Environment Agency given the responsibility for ensuring Regulatory Compliance must not allow the Owner or Operator of any High Risk Large Raised Reservoirs with outstanding MIOS to operate , to so do , would be a failure in Statutory Duty
It is not for the Respondent to misuse presumption in favour of development , by circumventing , necessary legal duties , such as to approve an inappropriate development

(a) The Cumulative Risk Arising from the management of two High Risk large Raised Reservoirs in close proximity to a Proposed Development as a result of Harm arising from the Proposed Housing Site within a Zone of Destruction, when other alternatives are available.

For avoidance of doubt , Siting Housing within 9m of the Toe of two post 1880 Dam(s) containing 96,000 and 61,000 m3 water , elevated aprox 10 m above the proposed Development and with associated Risks on Ground Stability due to presence of 17 mines to the front of reservoir and associated Ground stability by way of Aggregated Risk. It is manifestly in the Public Interest for members of the Public to be able to Check , the Reservoir Register , to ensure that (i) Inspections are occurring on Time (ii) Supervising engineers are reporting and recording Observations (iii) That Inspections regimes are being Implemented (MIOS) Minimum, Interventions on Safety and (iv) That any alteration to the catchment , upstream or downstream Watercourses are impacting on the Regulation of the Reservoir
The council , Owner and operator and regulated operator of said structures

(b) The ss12 (5) (a) exception relates to impact on National Security , For avoidance of doubt , and that required for any reasonable Threshold Test

The reservoirs in Question is (i) Not a potable water supply (ii) Is located in a Green Field Agricultural Setting (iii) Is not SCADA Controlled (iv) and does not pose a risk to any Major Infrastructure

Public Interest Test In Favour of Disclosure

It is not for the Respondent, Bradford MDC an Owner and Operators of High Risk Large Raised reservoirs within the meaning of Law to withhold that required to be given in Law to be prescribed or to act ultra vires in respect of superseding any Regulatory Instrument set down by Parliament

In the first Instance It is not the disclosure of such information that poses Risk to the Public but its Non Disclosure , as result of The Council failing in its Statutory Duties , it being negligent not to provide the level of Risk such as to avoid or mitigate it, therein being the Public Interest .

The Respondents view to Applying Exception using ss38

The Respondent appears to confuse the 12 (5) EIR Test with the ss 38 FOI Act and the necessary criteria applicable to each

In applying a s38 exemption due regard must be given to whether the same or similar information is already available in the public domain and whether the consequences of disclosure are more or less serious,

Such Exceptions should not be misused where there is a necessity of the LLFA to maintain separation and identify Local Site Specific Cumulative Flood Risk ( NPPF)
There is an overwhelming Public Interest to make available such information to Amenity Users , Members of The Public , and fro the LLFA to work with all Agencies RMA , Communites and Other Organisations to identify Flood Risk. The duty to Public Safety under the Flood and Water Management Act (2010 ) can not be undermined by any conflict of interest EG s10 Benefits , Statutory Duty to Manage Drainage under a Act restrictive Title on allocated Land by virtue of an Inclosure Act (188) requiring the Council to maintain the beneficial Gift ( Harold Park ) or Water courses

I am of the reasonable belief that an Internal Review is not required at this stage given the obligation to disclose ALL Prescribed Information on the Register , none the less the Council have been given opportunity to provide the necessary information as a full record of both reservoirs . Nonetheless I will give the Council opportunity to provide that requested before reporting independently in the Public Domain on the basis of Established Fact and Observed Fact which would be better effected by co-operation . I therefore request an Internal Review , I also note that the responsibility of delegated authority , does not lie with the Councils Legal department but the delegated officer under the duties Flood and Water management Act (2010)

Yours sincerely,

Colin Duke