Signage installation work on a red route at Coldharbour Lane, Brixton, SW9
Request ID: FOI-4194-2324 Date published: 29 February 2024
You asked
Dear Sir or Madam,
Subject Access Request – Signage installation work on a red route at Coldharbour Lane, Brixton, SW9 on 13 February 2024 on public footpaths.
I hereby submit a subject access request under the Environmental Information Regulations (EIR) 2004 for data held by Transport for London on permission to carry out work from height activities at Coldharbour Lane, Brixton, SW9 on 13 February 2024 on public footpaths.
1. I am seeking a copy of the construction and environmental management plan for working on height tasks being performed by Ringway Jacobs Limited on red routes roads and public footpaths activities at Coldharbour Lane, Brixton, SW9 on 13 February 2024 on public footpaths.
2. I am seeking a written statement from Transport for London regarding the correct method of installation of traffic signage on red routes activities at Coldharbour Lane, Brixton, SW9 on 13 February 2024 on public footpaths.
3. Can Transport of London please confirm why public safety was not considered during the installation of new signage by Ringway Jacobs Limited at Coldharbour Lane, Brixton, SW9 on 13 February 2024 on public footpaths?
High Court Ruling
Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL 11/06/2020. Mr. Justice Dove’s judgment. Neutral Citation Number: [2020] EWHC 1509 (Admin) Case No: CO/3741/2019
The Queen on the application of Holborn Studios Limited Claimant - and - London Borough of Hackney - and - GHL (Eagle Wharf Road) Limited
“Local planning authorities in England must disclose background papers relevant to the decisions they make on planning applications other than in "exceptional circumstances", the High Court in London has ruled in a court case The Queen on the application of Holborn Studios Limited Claimant - and - London Borough of Hackney -and- GHL (Eagle Wharf Road) Limited
Mr. Justice Dove said in his ruling that the material provided to the public was not adequate to enable members of the public to make a sensible response to the consultation on the application.
The London Borough of Hackney argued that, under the case law established in the 'Perry' case in 2014, it was not under an obligation to "place confidential information bearing upon the question of viability into the public domain". It claimed the information disclosed was "sufficient to enable an interested person to formulate their objection in relation to the application", and that the bulk of the "missing documentation" contained information that was exempt from disclosure under the Local Government Act 1972.
The 1972 Act makes provision for the right of the public to inspect "background papers" relating to council reports where the papers "disclose any facts or matters on which, in the opinion of the proper officer, the report or an important part of the report is based, and; have, in his opinion, been relied on to a material extent in preparing the report". The requirements on the disclosure of background papers are subject to certain exemptions and can include "information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person".
Mr. Justice Dove rejected the London Borough of Hackney's claims of compliance with its disclosure obligations and also said it could not rely on an exemption under the 1972 Act to avoid disclosing the viability assessment. The judge reached that view after considering the wording of the revised NPPF and PPG published last year, concluding among other things that "in accordance with the [NPPF] viability assessments (where they are justified) should reflect the approach set out in PPG, and be made publicly available".
"The inputs and findings of a viability assessment should be set out 'in a way that aids clear interpretation and interrogation by decision-makers' and be made publicly available save in exceptional circumstances," the judge said. "As the PPG makes clear, the preparation of a viability assessment 'is not usually specific to that developer and thereby need not contain commercially sensitive data'. Even if some elements of the assessment are commercially sensitive, as the PPG points out, they can be aggregated in a published viability assessment so as to avoid disclosure of sensitive material.
Resource: England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions
Very importantly, I will be submitting an application to the High Court if Lambeth Council rejects my subject information request based on exemptions under 1972
Act to avoid disclosure.
If you need any more information, please let me know as soon as possible
I would like to receive the information electronically by email.
It may be helpful for you to know that data protection law requires you to respond to a request within one calendar month.
If you do not normally deal with these requests, please pass this letter to your data protection officer or relevant staff member.
If you need advice on dealing with this request, the Information Commissioner’s Office can assist you. Its website is ico.org.uk, or it can be contacted on 0303 123 1113.
Yours faithfully,
We answered
TfL Ref: FOI-4194-2324
Thank you for your request received by Transport for London (TfL) on13 February 2024 asking for information about signage installation works.
Your request has been considered in accordance with the requirements of the Environmental Information Regulations and our information access policy.
Unfortunately we do not hold the information you have requested as Coldharbour Lane is not a part of the TfL Road Network.
