Why will you not trial the consulted scheme when you were quite happy to approve bus boarders at Southbury Road Ponders End (Stops H & J) that have resulted in the junction ceasing up, particularly at J, where bus drivers change over, yet there is no overtake facility, causing gridlock as the 279 changes over, blocking the road for up ta five minutes at a time, causing real harm, alongside causing northbound tailbacks all the way to Lincoln Rd, making walking faster even during the off peak daytime. What is the actual harm to trialling the consulted scheme at Nightingale Rd LB, that has a minor affect on a junction that has no capacity issues? Via FOI and EIA regulations, provide any correspondence, reports, emails to Enfield Council or Jacobs and meeting notes relating to this decision to abort the consulted scheme.

---

TfL Reference numbers: 2697-1718, 2677-1718, 2649-1718,  2601-1718, 2575-1718, 2561-1718, 2237-1718 and 2336-1718.

Thank you for your requests (reference numbers above) received by Transport for London (TfL) between 6 and 16 December 2017 asking for various information relating to local transport issues around the Edmonton and Enfield areas.

Your requests have been considered in accordance with the requirements of the Environmental Information Regulations and TfL’s information access policy. I can confirm TfL does hold the information you require.

However, given the extent of the information you are looking for as outlined in the six open requests and the additional two requests we have answered in the last two months, we are applying Regulation 12(4)(b) as we believe that the cumulative burden of answering the requests is manifestly unreasonable’ because providing the information you have requested would impose unreasonable costs on us and require an unreasonable diversion of resources. Whilst the Environmental Information Regulations do not specify a limit at which requests become unreasonably burdensome, the Information Commissioner has suggested that the 18 hour limit set by Parliament in respect of the Freedom of Information Act is a reasonable starting point: https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisations/documents/1615/manifestly-unreasonable-requests.pdf

The potentially relevant information which we hold covers several transport modes and comprises a large number of potentially relevant emails, documents and correspondence held in various separate storage systems, all of which would have to be reviewed to ascertain their relevance to your requests. Information is held by numerous people within different business areas within TfL, in both electronic and paper files, all of which would have to be manually searched, to some extent at least, to answer your requests.

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 also help address your particular concerns about these transport issues. 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. On balance we consider that the public interest currently favours the use of the exception as we have not identified an overriding public interest that would justify responding to these requests under the EIR.

Please see the attached information sheet for details of your right to appeal.

Yours sincerely

Sara Thomas

FOI Case Officer

FOI Case Management Team

General Counsel

Transport for London

Back to top

---