Request for written correspondence from FTA, RHA and two transport operators regarding DVS
Request ID: FOI-0618-2122 Date published: 16 July 2021
You asked
In the TEC second despatch TEC minutes June 13 2019, (Second Dispatch TEC Papers 13 June 2019.pdf) when discussing DVS, it is said:
"Identified potential objections
19. Four representations which could potentially amount to statutory objections to the Scheme
and/ or Amendment Order under regulation 9(3) were identified. These are from the Road Haulage Association (RHA), Freight Transport Association (FTA) and two Transport Operators as set out above and in full at Appendix G. Those respondents have been contacted to seek clarity as to the nature of the representations and they have clarified in writing that their representations are not objections or in one case, withdrawn their objection.
20. Officers are of the view that there are no responses which amount to a statutory objection and therefore the legal requirement for a public inquiry is not triggered. Leading Counsel has confirmed this view."
Please provide copies of this correspondence showing that their representations are not objections, and any correspondence sent to these parties promoting such a clarification.
We answered
TfL Ref: FOI-0618-2122
Thank you for your request received by Transport for London (TfL) on 24th June 2021 asking for information about the Direct Vision Standard (DVS).
Your request has been considered in accordance with the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act and our information access policy.
Specifically you asked:
“In the TEC second despatch TEC minutes June 13 2019, (Second Dispatch TEC Papers 13 June 2019.pdf) when discussing DVS, it is said:
"Identified potential objections
19. Four representations which could potentially amount to statutory objections to the Scheme and/ or Amendment Order under regulation 9(3) were identified. These are from the Road Haulage Association (RHA), Freight Transport Association (FTA) and two Transport Operators as set out above and in full at Appendix G. Those respondents have been contacted to seek clarity as to the nature of the representations and they have clarified in writing that their representations are not objections or in one case, withdrawn their objection.
20. Officers are of the view that there are no responses which amount to a statutory objection and therefore the legal requirement for a public inquiry is not triggered. Leading Counsel has confirmed this view."
Please provide copies of this correspondence showing that their representations are not objections, and any correspondence sent to these parties promoting such a clarification.
I can confirm that we hold the information you require. While the minutes cited above refer to four organisations, TfL in fact only contacted three as the fourth was deemed to not require clarification. The three organisations that TfL contacted were the Freight Transport Association; the Road Haulage Association, and; Middlebrook Transport Ltd. Our exchanges with those bodies are attached. Note that the request for clarification to the FTA was made by phone and hence there is no written record of TfL contacting them - only their response. Note also that some information has been redacted under section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act, the exemption that protects against the unfair release of personal data. This relates solely to the names and contact details of external individuals, and the contact details of TfL staff.
If this is not the information you are looking for, or if you are unable to access it for any 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,
David Wells FOI Case Officer FOI Case Management Team General Counsel Transport for London
