Letter Head (With Logo)
Mr Anthony Cartmell
By Email Only:
Dear Mr Cartmell,
Re: Internal Review of Freedom of Information Request dated 16.11.14
Further to your email dated 25th November, I have been asked to conduct an internal review of the way in which your request for information dated 16th November has been dealt with.
The request
On 16 November you requested the following:
Please could you provide me with the responses to the recent "Have Your Say: Worthing 20mph" consultation.
Specifically I would like to see the following details for each consultation response form:
* The postcode entered on the form.
* The individual responses (Yes/No) for each vote on the form.
* The comments made at the bottom of the form.
* Whether it was an original form, as sent by WSCC, or a copy from another source
The response
A response was provided to you 25th November by Sally Neville, Organisational Support Officer. The response stated that your request was being dealt with under the Environmental Information Regulations (EIR) and confirmed that the Authority does hold information in respect of bullet points 1, 2 and 3, but does not hold information in respect of bullet point 4. The Authority declined to disclose the information requested in bullet points 1 and 2 on the basis that by disclosing the detailed responses linked to post codes, this would enable an individual or group of individuals to be identified. Therefore the personal data exemption under Regulation 13 was applied.
The Authority further declined to disclose information requested under bullet point 3 on the basis that 11,000 individuals completed responses to the consultation which are held in paper format and to provide the information requested is manifestly unreasonable. Therefore the exemption under Regulation 12(4)(b) was therefore applied.
The internal review
In conducting the internal review I have had regard to the nature of the request and in my view the subject matter of the request concerns “measures (including administrative) ……“ likely to effect the local environment and therefore falls within the definition under Regulation 2(1)(c). I am satisfied therefore that the request has been appropriately dealt with under the provisions of the Environmental Information Regulations.
In your email dated 25th November you do not specifically take issue with the application of the personal data exemption under Regulation 13. However for the sake of completeness I have included this element as part of my review. I consider that the exemption under Regulation 13 has been properly applied, as to disclose the detailed responses of individuals together with post code information would in my view breach data protection principles, as an individual or group of individuals and their personal views could be identified. In considering the use of this exemption I have noted the public interest factors applied to your request and agree that there is a strong public interest in knowing the results of the consultation and as advised, detailed information about the raw data is available in the report appearing on the CLC webpage - I also agree that there is a strong public interest in ensuring that individuals who provide responses to consultation do so in the knowledge that their personal data and personal opinions remain confidential and protected. In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the public interest in upholding the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosure.
Turning now to the exemption applied under Regulation 12(4)(b), this allows an Authority to refuse to disclose information to the extent that the request for information is manifestly unreasonable. I note your comment in your email dated 25th November that you “strongly deny that [my] request is manifestly unreasonable”. It is not suggested you are behaving in a manifestly unreasonable way, but rather that the nature of the request and the impact of dealing with it is manifestly unreasonable. The purpose of the exception is to protect public authorities from exposure to a disproportionate burden or an unjustified level of distress, disruption or irritation, in handling information requests.
You have already been provided with the link to the results of the consultation which includes statistics about the responses to yes/no questions. I confirm again that the Authority does hold the original responses to the consultation process, and as you know there were 11,000 completed survey responses, all of which are in paper form as electronic responses were not accepted. You have also been advised that each survey response contains the name and address of the individual, together with their comments in response to the survey. In order to provide you with “the comments made at the bottom of the form” for each individual, the Authority would be required to manually redact all 11000 paper responses. Given the report on the consultation has been published and this shows the responses broken down in several different ways it would be a burden on the Authority to be required to divert resources to provide the information requested under your bullet point 3.
In undertaking this review I have considered the proportionality of the burden and costs involved in complying with your request. I have had regard to the nature of your request and believe that the wider value in the requested information being made public is satisfied by the publication of the results of the consultation. I accept that there is a great public interest in the underlying issue to which your request relates, however, again, I am satisfied that this is properly served by the consultation process itself and the publication of the results. I have also considered the very real impact that complying with this request would have on the already stretched and restricted resources available to this Authority and do not consider that the time and resources required to comply with your request are proportionate.
In considering the exemption under Regulation 12(4)(b), I agree that the public interest in taking part in the decision around the proposed 20 miles an hour speed limit in Worthing is served by the consultation process itself and the public interest in the raw data is served by the publication of the report. There is not sufficient public interest in seeing individual comments so as to outweigh the application of the exemption.
Conclusion
In the circumstances, I am satisfied that your request has been properly dealt with and that the exemptions applied have been correctly considered. I therefore uphold the use of the exemptions under Regulation 13 and Regulation 12(4)(b).
In conducting this review, I have however identified some additional information that you may find useful and I attach a street by street breakdown of the consultation results.
If you are not content with the outcome of your complaint, you may apply directly to the Information Commissioner for a decision. Generally, the ICO cannot make a decision unless you have exhausted our complaints procedure. The Information Commissioner can be contacted at:
The Information Commissioner's Office,
Wycliffe House,
Water Lane,
Wilmslow,
Cheshire
SK9 5AF.
Yours sincerely,
Linda Spanner
1