Request ID: FOI-3962-2324 Date published: 28 February 2024
You asked
Please supply me with some information under the Freedom of Information Act and Environmental Information Regulations provisions.
In a publication Low Traffic Neighbourhoods and Cycling, compiled around May 2022, TfL lists Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTNs) implemented through London Streetspace Programme (LSP) funding between May-October 2020.
The following LTNs are identified for LB Hammersmith & Fulham.
South Fulham
North End Road Area
Brackenbury
Barons Court
Brook Green Area
Cathnor Park
White City
Caxton Village
1.For each of the above, please provide all correspondence (two-way) between TfL and LB Hammersmith & Fulham in the period May-October 2020 proposing and approving the implementation of LTNs.
2. How much funding was provided to LB Hammersmith & Fulham and any other party involved in implementing the LTNs? What conditions were attached, apart from the Secretary of State for Transportís statutory guidance from May 2020?
3.The LTN for South Fulham was listed as Suspendedí, implying that it was implemented and then removed. Please provide any correspondence (two-way) between TfL and LB Hammersmith & Fulham concerned with the suspension of this LTN.
4, For each of the eight LTNs, please provide any post assessment reviews carried out for TfL on the impact of their implementation.
We answered
TfL Ref: FOI-3962-2324
Thank you for your request which we received on 1 February 2024, asking for information about Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTNs) in Hammersmith & Fulham. Your request has been considered under the terms of the Environmental Information Regulations (EIRs). I can confirm we hold the information you require.
The London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham were issued £225k for their LTN programme as part of the London Streetspace Programme. This covered the following schemes, according to their bid:
•South Fulham •North End Road Area •Brackenbury, Grove and Brook Green Area •Cathnor Park •White City and Caxton Village
Unfortunately, given the extent of the information you are looking for, particularly in question 3, we are applying Regulation 12(4)(b) to the rest of your request, as we believe that it’s ‘manifestly unreasonable’ because providing the information you have requested would impose unreasonable costs on us and require an unreasonable diversion of resources. When we receive requests asking for correspondence, we are able to conduct a companywide email search using keywords, dates and email addresses. The more specific a requester can be, the more we can narrow the search and therefore stand a better chance of a more relevant or focused result.
We have carried out a search using the most relevant keywords, including LTN" or "low traffic neighbourhood” and this search alone returned 549 results. Obviously, we’d need to widen the terms to capture the specific schemes you have listed which would increase the number of emails. All of these potentially relevant emails would require a manual review.Some of the emails captured by the search might be duplicates or not even relevant, due to emails being repeated within email chains. Whilst the actual number of emails covered by your request might be a sub-set of the numbers the email search captured, it is the excessive work involved in having to locate and extract those that are relevant and meet your request, that would be burdensome. If you have specific questions relating to the Low Traffic Neighbourhood schemes in Hammersmith & Fulham, we may be more easily able to respond to these than to a request for all correspondence we’ve had with the London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham.
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. 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.
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.For example, rather than a blanket request for all communication, if you ask for specific documents or have particular questions, we may be able to provide a more helpful response. Please see the attached information sheet for details of your right to appeal.
Yours sincerely
Eva Hextall FOI Case Management Team General Counsel Transport for London
