Request ID: FOI-1243-2122 Date published: 29 September 2021
You asked
Could you please supply to me all correspondence between yourselves and Tower Hamlets Borough Council about the 'Bow Liveable Streets' programme that relates to the functioning of TfL's 'red routes'.
For context, the mayor of Tower Hamlets says "the changes proposed in Bow may have effects on the red routes that need to be modelled and understood before changes proceed".
We answered
TfL Ref: EIR-1243-2122
Thank you for your request received by Transport for London (TfL) on 10th September 2021 asking for information about the Bow Liveable Streets scheme.
Your request has been considered in accordance with the requirements of the Environmental Information Regulations and our information access policy.
Specifically you asked:
“Could you please supply to me all correspondence between yourselves and Tower Hamlets Borough Council about the 'Bow Liveable Streets' programme that relates to the functioning of TfL's 'red routes'.”
I can confirm that we hold the information you require. However, there is no particularly quick or efficient way of sourcing it all. In order to try and find the material that falls within the scope of your request we have run an automated search of all emails to/from @towerhamlets.gov.uk since 31 March 2020 containing the term “Bow Liveable Streets” and this returned over 400 items. It is also possible that there will be further emails on this subject that do not specifically contain that term, so to find everything we would need to broaden our search further. In order to then isolate those that specifically relate to “the functioning of TfL’s red routes” we would have to review each of those emails individually. We do not believe that this is a proportionate use of our resource and your request is therefore being refused under Regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR on the basis that it is ‘manifestly unreasonable’.
The purpose of this exception is to protect a public authority from exposure to a disproportionate burden or an unjustified level of distress, disruption or irritation in handling information requests, and is used when the cost of compliance with an EIR request would be too great. In assessing whether the cost or burden of dealing with a request is “too great” we take into account:
- the nature of the request and any wider value in the requested information being made publicly available; - the importance of any underlying issue to which the request relates, and the extent to which responding to the request would illuminate that issue; - the extent to which we would be distracted from delivering other services; In this case we believe that the effort required to source all of the material is disproportionate to its value and would divert resource away from other activities. Note that the Information Commissioner has stated that applicants for information from public bodes should not “Deliberately ‘fish’ for information by submitting a very broad or random request in the hope it will catch something noteworthy or otherwise useful” nor “Send ‘catch-all’ requests for information (such as ‘please provide me with everything you hold about ‘x’) when you aren’t sure what specific documents to ask for.” (see the table of “Dos and Don’ts” on the Commissioners website here: https://ico.org.uk/your-data-matters/official-information/). Your request is in essence a fishing exercise and it is unclear what wider public value it would serve. We do not believe, therefore, that the public interest favours the expenditure of the resource required to answer it. Of course, if you have a specific question about the scheme or want to see a specific document we would address those requests accordingly.
Please see the attached information sheet for details of your right to appeal..
Yours sincerely,
David Wells FOI Case Officer FOI Case Management Team General Counsel Transport for London
