Skip to content
DHWNEWS
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Contact
Menu

Freedom of Information Request – REFUSED

Posted on May 13, 2024 by ecwlarcombe

I requested (from the EA) the names of all the Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead Councillors and Officers who attended the RTS Sponsoring Group Meetings.  These were the individuals who may have firstly supported the River Thames Scheme (from about 2015 onwards) and then reneged without consultation or warning in July 2020.  Consequently RTS Channel One (improved flood protection for Old Windsor, Datchet, Horton and Wraysbury) was removed from the RTS project.

The amount of money (i.e. the RBWM portion and commitment to partnership funding) involved was about £53m.

I already know most of the names and will publish them in due course.

The response is shown in full below:

From: Enquiries_THM <enquiries_THM@environment-agency.gov.uk>
Sent: 13 May 2024 07:14
To: Cllr Larcombe <Cllr.Larcombe@RBWM.gov.uk>

Subject: THM358230_LR: Freedom of Information Request

Dear Mr Larcombe,

Thank you for your request received on 26 April.

 Request for information regarding the names of all the Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead Councillors and Officers who attended the RTS Sponsoring Group Meetings; Our reference THM358230

We respond to requests for recorded information that we hold under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) and the associated Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR).

The Environment Agency cannot disclose the names of all the Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead Councillors and Officers who attended the RTS Sponsoring Group Meetings. This information is personal data and to disclose it would breach the first data protection principle of the UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR) and Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA 2018).

The first data protection principle requires that we are fair to individuals when we collect and use their personal data. Individuals have a reasonable expectation of confidentiality when they attend meetings so it would be unfair to disclose this information.

The information requested is therefore exempt due to Section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, which explains that:

” Any information to which a request for information relates is also exempt information if—

(a) it constitutes personal data … and

(b) the first…condition below is satisfied

The ‘first condition’ referred to above is further explained in Section 40(3A):

“The first condition is that the disclosure of the information to a member of the public otherwise than under this Act—

(a) would contravene any of the data protection principles…”

The First Data Protection Principle requires that we are fair to individuals when we collect and use their personal data.  In this case it would be unfair to disclose information relating to an identifiable individual as such individuals have a reasonable expectation that any information held about them by the Environment Agency would remain confidential. There is no requirement to conduct a public interest test when refusing on this ground.

I hope that we have correctly interpreted your request.

If you are not satisfied you can contact us within 2 calendar months to ask for our decision to be reviewed. We shall review our response to your request and give you our decision in writing within 40 working days.

If you are still not satisfied following this, you can raise a concern with the Information Commissioner, who is the statutory regulator for Freedom of Information and the Environmental Information Regulations.  The contact details are:

Information Commissioner’s Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire SK9 5AF

Tel: 0303 123 1113

Website: http://ico.org.uk

Yours sincerely,

 

Customers & Engagement Team – Thames

Environment Agency | Red Kite House, Howbery Park, Wallingford, OX10 8BD

1 thought on “Freedom of Information Request – REFUSED”

  1. Cllr Ian Thompson says:
    May 18, 2024 at 10:22 am

    The minutes of the meetings by RBWM Councillors re the RTS are in the public arena . The minutes will record the Cllrs present, so why is this info now being refused?

Comments are closed.

Recent Posts

  • The wooden footbridge problem in the Thames area
  • The Myrke Footbridge (Michael’s Bridge) Number 19
  • Ashford Lane footbridge – simply rotten
  • Ashford Lane Footbridge – Failure analysis
  • Ashford Lane footbridge collapse – just the beginning?

DATCHET

The name "Datchet" is thought to be Celtic in origin, and the last part may be related to cet ("wood"). In the Domesday Book it is called "Daceta".lla. Datchet is first mentioned between 990 and 994, when King Ethelred made small grants of land here.

HORTON

The village name "Horton" is a common one in England. It is Old English in origin and derives from the two words horu 'dirt' and tūn 'settlement, farm, estate', presumably meaning 'farm on muddy soil'.In the Domesday Book of 1086 it was recorded as Hortune.

WRAYSBURY

The village name was traditionally spelt Wyrardisbury; it is Anglo Saxon in origin and means 'Wïgrǣd's fort'. Its name is recorded in the Domesday Book of 1086 as Wirecesberie and as Wiredesbur in 1195. The name is seen again as Wyrardesbury in 1422.

©2025 DHWNEWS | Design: Newspaperly WordPress Theme