18.3.18 clarification Many thanks for your email. With regard to a timeframe; are you able to search the period from May 3rd 2018 to now or if that is a bit long, from May 3rd 2018 to Jan 31st 2019? The types of document I would be seeking would include notes of meetings, presentations, reports and possibly emails. I suspect it may help further to search for correspondence on the topics in question between TfL and the following people in LBHF: xxxx ([email protected]), xxxx ([email protected]) and xxxx ([email protected]), as they are particularly involved in promoting CS9. Does that narrow the focus sufficiently? Dear Mayor, Various Members of the GLA and Board Members of TfL It has been pointed out to me that the Labour manifesto for the local elections in the London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham (LBHF) promised to lobby the Mayor to run the CS9 cycle route down the A4, not King Street or Hammersmith Road. As Labour was subsequently elected, it is evident that this manifesto commitment has NOT been met even though election was secured on the back of it. Therefore, please can the Mayor and TfL answer the following questions under the freedom of Information Act and responds within the time limit provided by law. Was any discussion held between the Mayor and any Labour elected official in LBHF about CS9. If so, when did the discussion or discussions take place? If so, how long did they last? Who was involved from TfL, the Mayor’s office and LBHF? Were there any direct conversations between the Mayor and the Leader of LBHF council about CS9? If so, what was said. Please provide any emails or notes of conversations. At all or any such discussions did representatives of LBHF ask the Mayor and to TfL NOT to run CS9 down King Street or Hammersmith Road? In any representations, what points were made? • What was said about the inevitable gridlock to traffic? • What was said about the inevitable discrimination against disabled, elderly, infirm, mothers with children and those not able to ride a bike? • What was said about the decline in cycling, including the net closure of bicycle shops in London? • What was said about the extraordinarily high cost per cyclist attracted to the new crop of cycle superhighways - £62,000 per cyclist? • What was said about the inevitable restriction of access to emergency vehicles and the consequent increased risk to life? • What was said about the manifest inequity of giving 30% of road space exclusively to fewer than 3% of road-users? • What was said about the fact that outside rush hour, the cycle superhighways are almost always totally empty, whilst other vehicle traffic is regularly jammed? • What was said about the manifesto commitment NOT to run CS9 down Hammersmith Road and Chiswick High Road? If any or all of the above points were made by LBHF, what was the response of the Mayor and/or of TfL? What consideration was given by the Mayor / TfL to the fact that the proposed route of CS9 did not have the support of the local community in LBHF, as evidenced by the outcome of the local elections? What was said by the Mayor and/or TfL that persuaded the Council to back down on its manifesto commitments? In answering the above questions, please provide all relevant notes of meetings and copies of all relevant presentations and emails.

---

TfL Ref: 3358-1819

Thank you for your clarification of your request received by us on 18 March 2019.

Your request has been considered in accordance with the requirements of the Environmental Information Regulations (EIRs) and our information access policy. I can confirm we hold some of the information you require. You asked for all relevant notes of meetings and copies of all relevant presentations and emails for the period May 3^rd 2018 to Jan 31^st 2019 including email correspondence between TfL and specified individuals from the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham.

However, given the extent of the information you are looking for, we are applying Regulation 12(4)(b) to your request as we believe that it is ‘manifestly unreasonable’ because providing the information you have requested would impose unreasonable costs on us and require an unreasonable diversion of resources. To answer your current request in full would take an excessive amount of staff time and resources.

We have carried out a preliminary email search and we have identified almost 500 emails which are captured by your request. In order to identify, extract and collate those that are relevant to your request we would need to review the content of each email to determine whether they answer the questions you have asked. We would also need to review each one and manually redact any personal information, as well as consider whether any additional exceptions may apply.

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 this issue. 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.

If you have a particular report you are interested in or if you are able to able to narrow the scope of your query with a specific question we may consider your request in the future. Broad correspondence requests can often provide a significant burden to our resources and so you may find it a more beneficial use of the legislation to ask specific questions regarding any areas of concern. Additionally, please be aware that information access legislation such as FOI and EIR only covers information recorded at the time of your request and so would not cover advice, explanation or opinion that was not already recorded.

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

---