The unprecedented traffic jams that the first day of the Isle of Wight Festival inflicted on the Island this year caused not just considerable anger among a lot of the population, but caused great concerns about public safety.
Due to the considerable public outrage, VentnorBlog has been continued to dig into this story to try to understand where the failures occurred. The key document in understanding this appeared to be the Event Safety and Operational Plan (ESOP) which the event organiser, SOLO, have to provide to the council each year at least 120 days before the event.
As we’ve reported previously, the council has attempted to block access to the document following our original requested it on 22 June.
20 working days rule not complied with
Despite only having a single third-party to deal with, the council failed to adhere with the general FOIA rule that responses must be made within 20 working days to comply with the law. When we reminded them that they’d failed to provide the information, they told us that they hoped to have their response with us by mid-August, using the excuse that they had to deal with a third-party.
Only today have VB been informed by the council that they have refused our request under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
IWC stated reasons for refusal
The full reasons for their refusal are included in the documents we’ve embedded below, as is this year’s festival Conditions and Requirements document. In summary, they are using …
- Section 38 (Section 38 applies to information whose disclosure would be likely to endanger the physical or mental health or the safety of any individual.)
- Section 40 (Section 40 concerns personal data within the meaning of the Data Protection Act 1998)
- and Section 41 (Section 41 applies to information that has been obtained from another person and whose disclosure to the public would constitute an actionable breach of confidence.)
This IS in the public interest
Neither the council nor Solo have shown any enthusiasm to share parts of this important document with Islanders and to us it feels like these reasons for refusal are being stretched to fit the situation. It appears to us that the information held in the traffic section of the ESOP are very much in the public interest, a test that has, by law, to be applied to the majority of the sections listed.
We have made it clear to the council that the information we are interested in is the traffic plan, so saying personal data would be exposed has no relevance. We have not requested personal data, so what would normally happen is that the authority would simply redact any personal data.
This is just their opinion
Let’s not forget that the council’s refusal is just their opinion. It might be fronted with fancy legal words, but it is still just their opinion. It’s highly possible that this opinion isn’t one shared with the Information Commissioner. We intend to find out.
Are you a legal eagle?
Any legal eagles out there that might be able to provide VB with an insight into us challenging this with the Information Commissioner, especially if they have knowledge in FOIA we’d be most grateful if they got in touch.
Under FOIA the council is obligated to help those applying for information to frame their request in a way that can help them gain access to the information they’ve requested. They have failed to do this, or even offer any guidance.
We’ll keep you informed.
Image: ifindkarma under a CC BY 2.0 license
