Documentation and emails relating to Battersea Bridge from office of Mr Andrew Hatch
Request ID: FOI-1357-2223 Date published: 21 September 2022
You asked
I wish to see all documentation and emails pertaining to the redesign of Battersea Bridge Traffic, especially those pertaining to the proposed banned left turn travelling west along Cheyne Walk onto Beaufort Street from the records of Mr Andrew Hatch.
I am particularly interested to see timelines of how the proposed scheme evolved with the internal and external designers of the scheme and Mr Hatch's discussion of this with them.
I wish to see any and all discussions - (minutes of meetings and emails) of how the proposed scheme will impinge on the traffic flows in the immediate and wider area.
We answered
Our Ref: FOI-1357-2223
Thank you for your request received on 5 September 2022 asking for information about the redesign of Battersea Bridge.
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.
We have proposed to ban the left turn into Beaufort Street to reduce the number of movements at the junction, and to protect bus and traffic journey times over the wider area. This proposal is based on the fact that a relatively small number of vehicles make this turning movement into Beaufort Street, compared to high volumes of vehicles travelling west to east who would otherwise have much longer journey times if the turn was not banned (with the potential to create traffic queues to King’s Road).
Banning the left turn also eliminates the risk of any left turning vehicles colliding with pedestrians as they cross Beaufort Street - and helps make pedestrians more visible to drivers, by widening the pavement at the north-west corner of the junction. It also allows us to locate the crossing closer to the junction, where pedestrians want to cross.
Given the extent of the information you are looking for, we are applying Regulation 12(4)(b) as we believe that the request is ‘manifestly unreasonable’ because providing the information you have requested would impose unreasonable costs on us and require an unreasonable diversion of resources.
We have identified over 500 emails that are captured by your request as well as additional documentation. This figure includes duplicates but we would still need to manually review all of the emails identified by the search in order to extract and collate the relevant emails. We would also need to review the related documents we have identified. By their very nature, emails contain significant amounts of personal data and the process of reviewing all of this material to identify whether one or more exemptions might apply, and then applying those redactions, would present a significant diversion of limited and specialist resource. Whilst we appreciate the public interest in this matter, we consider that the public interest is better served by ensuring our limited and specialist resources are focussed on their core functions rather than diverted to focus solely on this information request which would take up a significant amount of time to fully conclude.
Our principal duty is to provide an effective transport service for London and we consider that answering this request would represent 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.
We have previously disclosed some correspondence regarding Battersea Bridge which you may find helpful:
You may wish to consider narrowing the scope of your request. For example, you may want to limit your request by removing the correspondence part of your request and focus on the documentation regarding the proposed redesign. Alternatively, rather than a blanket request for correspondence and documentation, if you have specific questions that you would like to ask this may be more helpful than a request for correspondence.
The use of this exception is subject to a public interest test, which requires us to consider whether the public interest in applying the exception outweighs the public interest in disclosure. We recognise that the release of information would promote accountability and transparency in public services and may help address your particular concerns regarding the proposed changes. However, the time it would take to provide the information you have requested would divert a disproportionate amount of our resources from its core functions and on balance we consider that the public interest currently favours the use of the exception.
We will consider your request again, if you are able to narrow its scope so that we can more easily locate, retrieve and extract the information you are seeking.
Please see the attached information sheet for details of your right to appeal.
Yours sincerely
Gemma Jacob Senior FOI Case Officer FOI Case Management Team General Counsel Transport for London
