Mr James Kemp Freedom of Information By email: The Quadrant [email protected] Elder Gate Milton Keynes MK9 1EN

T 01908 782405 E [email protected]

24 February 2016

Dear Mr Kemp

Cornwall resignalling scheme and options for capacity improvements

Internal Review reference number: FOI2016/00124

Original request reference number: FOI2016/00019

I refer to your e-mail of 30 January 2016 which requested an internal review of the handling of your request for information made on 6 January 2016.

I have considered this matter, and my conclusion is that your request has not been handled in accordance with the requirements of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR). However, while I consider that your request was not ‘too general’ in describing the information you were seeking, this internal review has concluded that a different exception in the EIR still applies to the request. I will explain this fully below.

I have also provided further advice and assistance, including links to relevant information which is available in the public domain.

Request History

On 6 January 2016, you made the following request:

‘Could you please provide all information, including correspondence with other authorities and government departments, that you hold relating to the re-

Network Rail Infrastructure Limited Registered Office: Network Rail, 2nd Floor, One Eversholt Street, London, NW1 2DN Registered in England and Wales No. 2904587 www.networkrail.co.uk

signalling of , and other options for capacity improvements over the Cornish Main Line.

For the avoidance of doubt please regard the Cornish Main Line as the rail route between Newton Abbott and .’

Network Rail acknowledged your request on 7 January 2016 and responded to your request on 29 January 2016.

The response explained that we had processed your request under the EIR as the information requested was environmental according to the definition in the EIR. The response also refused your request under regulation 12(4)(c) (request formulated in too general a manner). The response advised that Network Rail was unable to identify the information which was required from the wording of your request. It also advised that we would be able to reconsider the request if you could clarify the request by specifying the timeframe for which you would like the information and, in relation to the request for correspondence, by specifying particular authorities and government departments.

You replied on 30 January 2016 to request an internal review (extract below):

My reasons for requesting this review are as follows:

1) I do not believe the information I have requested is environmental according to the definition in regulation 2 of the EIR (section 39 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA)

2) If I accept that the information I have requested IS considered environmental as above I do not believe my request was too general and therefore you do not have an exemption under regulation 12(4)c.

3) If I accept that the information I have requested IS considered environmental as above, you must have an understanding of my request to classify it as environmental, and therefore it cannot meet the criteria of regulation 12(4)c

To clarify I wish you to provide all information, including correspondence with other authorities and government departments, that you hold relating to the re- signalling, and where appropriate other options that have been considered for capacity improvements along the Cornish main line.

Again for the avoidance of doubt please regard the Cornish Main Line as the rail route between Newton Abbott and Penzance, exclusive of any branch lines from the main route (for example Par – ).

2

To clarify further, I would advise you concentrate on the correspondence from the Department For Transport, Cornwall Council, and Council.

Network Rail acknowledged your request for an internal review on 1 February 2016.

Issues on review

The purpose of Network Rail’s internal review procedure is to provide a fair, thorough and independent review of the handling of the applicant’s request, and of decisions taken pursuant to EIR.

In this instance, you do not believe that Network Rail was correct to consider your request under EIR as you believe that the information was not environmental in nature. In addition, you believe that the request was not too general and therefore regulation 12(4)(c) of EIR did not apply.

Decision

Summary

I have concluded that the requested information was environmental because the request is for information concerning the proposed construction of a signalling system on a railway line; the activity to construct the new system will inevitably affect elements of the environment such as soil and landscape. Similarly, options for capacity improvements on the railway infrastructure will inevitably involve the same two elements of the environment. The information held by Network Rail about the planning and consideration of such enhancement work therefore falls within the definition of measures affecting or likely to affect the elements of the environment, as set out in regulation 2(1)(c) of EIR.

I have also concluded that your request was not formulated in too general a manner and that the request does identify the information you are seeking; therefore regulation 12(4)(c) does not apply. However, I consider that regulation 12(4)(b) of EIR does apply, because your request is seeking a wide-range of information over an extended period of time, and compliance with the request would impose an unreasonable burden.

My conclusions are fully explained in the following sections:

 Applicability of the Freedom of Information Act 2000;  Applicability of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004;

3

 The requested information falls within the definition in regulations 2(1)(a) and 2(1)(c) of EIR;  Whether regulation 12(4)c of EIR applied to the request;  Whether regulation 12(4)(b) of EIR applied to the request;  Public interest test;  Further advice and assistance

Applicability of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA)

I should first advise that FOIA and EIR are very similar regimes for accessing recorded information from public authorities. However, the Information Commissioner’s guidance stresses that it is important to deal with requests for information under the correct legislation:

‘The Regulations provide a separate right of access to information about the environment. All other types of information are covered by the Freedom of Information Act. When you receive a request, you need to consider whether the information that has been asked for is environmental or not, and then deal with the request under the appropriate legislation’

I have therefore considered whether the information falls within the definition of environmental information set out in regulation 2 of the EIR. If the information satisfies the definition in regulation 2, then it must be considered for disclosure under the terms of the EIR rather than FOIA.

The FOIA provides as follows:

‘39.—(1) Information is exempt information if the public authority holding it –

(a) is obliged by environmental information regulations to make the information available to the public in accordance with the regulations, or

(b) would be so obliged but for any exemption contained in the regulations.’

(1A) In subsection (1) “environmental information regulations” means—

(a) regulations made under section 74, or

(b) regulations made under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972 for the purpose of implementing any obligation relating to public access to, and the dissemination of, information on the environment.’

4

The ICO has published guidance on this exemption, which reads: 1

‘11. By definition section 39 can only apply where an authority has an obligation to deal with the request under the EIR. It therefore follows that an authority must be subject to the EIR in order to claim the exemption.

12. If an authority is subject to the EIR, then the effect of this provision is to bring all environmental information within the scope of section 39, including material that would be exempt from disclosure when considered under the EIR.

[…]

Determining whether the information is environmental

16. The meaning of ‘environmental information’ is defined in regulation 2(1) of the EIR. If the requested information does not fall within the scope of this definition then section 39 can’t apply.

17. Usually it will be obvious whether the requested information is environmental, for example where the subject matter is land development...’

Network Rail is subject to the EIR and must deal with requests for environmental information under this legislation. In this case, the requested information relates to plans for resignalling a railway line and other options for improving capacity on the same line and therefore falls within the meaning of ‘environmental information’. I have concluded that it was appropriate for Network Rail to deal with the whole request under EIR and this is explained further in the next section.

Applicability of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004

Regulation 2(1) of EIR defines environmental information as any information on:

‘(a) the state of the elements of the environment, such as air and atmosphere, water, soil, land, landscape and natural sites including wetlands, coastal and marine areas, biological diversity and its components, including genetically modified organisms, and the interaction among these elements;

(b) factors, such as substances, energy, noise, radiation or waste, including radioactive waste, emissions, discharges and other releases into the

1 https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisations/documents/1043419/exemption-for-environmental- information-section-39.pdf

5

environment, affecting or likely to affect the elements of the environment referred to in (a);

(c) measures (including administrative measures), such as policies, legislation, plans, programmes, environmental agreements, and activities affecting or likely to affect the elements and factors referred to in (a) and (b) as well as measures or activities designed to protect those elements;

(d) reports on the implementation of environmental legislation;

(e) cost-benefit and other economic analyses and assumptions used within the framework of the measures and activities referred to in (c); and

(f) the state of human health and safety, including the contamination of the food chain, where relevant, conditions of human life, cultural sites and built structures inasmuch as they are or may be affected by the state of the elements of the environment referred to in (a) or, through those elements, by any of the matters referred to in (b) and (c);’

The requested information falls within the definition in regulations 2(1)(a) and 2(1)(c) of EIR

The ICO has published guidance on ‘What is environmental information’. 2

In relation to regulation 2(1)(a) of EIR, the guidance advises on the definition of the elements of the environment:

‘• Air and atmosphere − In many circumstances there will be no difference between air and atmosphere, but the reference to both elements suggests that air also refers to air in buildings and structures and other places where it is confined in some way. The gases and indeed solid particles that make up the atmosphere and air will also be included.

• Water −This will include water in all its forms − vapour, ice, liquid - and is not limited by scale as long as it can still be said to be an element of the environment. It includes water underground or on the surface and water in natural settings and in man-made systems.

• Soil and land − Soil can be taken to be the loose mineral and organic top layer of the earth’s surface in which plants could grow. Land is the solid, as contrasted

2 https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisations/documents/1146/eir_what_is_environmental_information.pdf

6

to the liquid or gaseous, parts making up the earth’s surface. It may well include land under the surface. There is a legal definition of land for the purposes of English law, but the regulations are referring to land as an element of the environment, not land as defined in English law.

• Landscape − Landscape is an area, as perceived by people, whose character is the result of the action and interaction of natural or human factors or both. Specialist guidance may give more technical definitions, but there is no real need to go beyond a common understanding of what the landscape is, whether urban or natural, rural or marine and whether attractive, everyday or degraded.’

In relation to regulation 2(1)(c), the guidance advises that:

‘Information about a measure or activity is environmental information if the measure or activity: • affects or is likely to affect the elements of the environment; • affects or is likely to affect a factor affecting or likely to affect an element of the environment; or • is designed to protect the elements of the environment.

The effect need not be detrimental or large scale; it may be small and beneficial. “Affecting” can be assessed by reference to the balance of probabilities; “likely to affect” suggests a lower test, but it must be more substantial than a remote possibility.

Although there are a number of examples in the EIR to help identify measures, there are no examples of what would be an activity. There would appear to be no reason to limit the normal use of the word. “Information on activities likely to affect the elements of the environment” suggests a very broad category of environmental information.’

In ICO decision notice FS50506857, the ICO stated that:

‘The Commissioner considers that the phrase ‘any information…on’ should be interpreted widely in line with the purpose expressed in the first recital of the Council Directive 2003/4/EC, which the EIR enact. In the Commissioner’s opinion a broad interpretation of this phrase will usually include information concerning, about or relating to the measure, activity, factor, etc. in question.’ 3

3 https://ico.org.uk/media/action-weve-taken/decision-notices/2013/933896/fs_50506857.pdf

7

I consider that the requested information concerns activities that would or would be likely to impact on the elements of the environment as defined in the EIR. The information within the scope of the request relates to plans for constructing a new signalling system on the Cornwall Main Line; and plans for capacity improvements on the same railway line. This work will inevitably affect the elements of the environment and examples are given below to explain this:

 construction of a new signalling system will involve activities such as digging into the soil to remove old signalling equipment and cables and to install new equipment and cables;

 new signalling equipment will have a different appearance from the old equipment and will therefore affect the landscape. It is possible that new equipment may be located at different sites in the landscape than existing equipment; and

 ‘other options for capacity improvements over the Cornish Main Line’ will similarly involve options to alter the railway infrastructure (e.g. construction work which would dig into the soil or would alter the appearance of railway structures in the landscape).

The information held by Network Rail concerns various aspects of planning and discussion relating to the resignalling project. I therefore consider that the requested information falls within the definition of ‘measures likely to affect the environment’ in regulation 2(1)(c).

In reaching this decision, I note that a similar approach was taken in ICO decision notice FER0467548, which concerned a request for a report relating to the High Speed 2 line (HS2). That decision stated that:-

‘18. HS2 is a plan which is likely to affect many of the elements and factors referred to in regulations 2(1)(a) and (b). For example, its construction is likely to affect land and landscape, and its construction and operation will be likely to result in environmental factors such as energy and noise.

[…]

20. For information to be environmental according to regulation 2(1), it must be ‘on’ one of the definitions listed in that regulation. The Commissioner agrees that the content of this information does not immediately appear to be environmental. It is, however, clearly information ‘on’ HS2, which is a measure likely to affect elements and factors listed in regulations 2(1)(a) and (b). The Commissioner

8

finds that the information in question here is, therefore, environmental information in accordance with regulation 2(1)(c)’ 4

Similarly, ICO decision notice FER0474086 stated that:

‘11. The information in question consists of drawings and other documents relating to the planning and construction of the Olympic Stadium and Aquatics Centre. The view of the Commissioner is that this information is ‘on’ a plan that falls within the scope of regulation 2(1)(c). The construction of these stadia clearly impacted on several of the elements of the environment listed in regulation 2(1)(a), including directly upon land and landscape, and also through factors listed in 2(1)(b) such as noise. As well as environmental effects that occurred during construction, the operation of these stadia is likely to have continued environmental impacts through such factors as waste and emissions.

12. The information in question is, therefore, environmental under regulation 2(1)(c) and it was correct to deal with the request under the EIR.’ 5

In that case, the Information Tribunal agreed that the requested information should be considered under EIR (case number EA/2013/0097): 6

‘10. The Commissioner and ODA consider the Withheld Information is environmental information under regulation 2(1)(c) – information on a measure. The information is on a plan of the Stadiums…We agree with the parties that the appeal should be considered under the EIR.’

Taking the approach in the second case, the resignalling of the Cornwall Main Line and other options for capacity improvements over the Cornish Main Line will affect the elements of the environment as defined in EIR, and the information held by Network Rail is therefore information on a measure affecting the environment as defined in regulation 2(1)(c).

Whether regulation 12(4)c of EIR applied to the request

Network Rail refused your request under regulation 12(4)(c) of EIR. Regulation 12(4)(c) of EIR provides that:

4 https://ico.org.uk/media/action-weve-taken/decision-notices/2013/869356/fer_0467548.pdf

5 https://ico.org.uk/media/action-weve-taken/decision-notices/2013/824672/fer_0474086.pdf

6 http://www.informationtribunal.gov.uk/DBFiles/Decision/i1169/Dransfield,%20Alan%20EA.2013.0097.pdf

9

‘12(4) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(a), a public authority may refuse to disclose information to the extent that – …

(c) the request for information is formulated in too general a manner and the public authority has complied with regulation 9;’

The Information Commissioner has published guidance on the regulation, which advises that: 7

‘8. Obviously, determining whether a request has been framed in “too general a manner” will depend on the particular facts of each case. The words ‘too general’ refer to a request that is too unclear or non-specific for the authority to identify and locate the information requested, or a request that is ambiguous, and therefore could be interpreted in more than one way. When in doubt, the authority should seek clarification of the meaning of the request…’

In this case, Network Rail did not seek clarification of the general meaning of the request; instead, in relation to the part of the request for correspondence, it asked you to specify particular authorities and government departments; and asked you to specify a timeframe for the information. As part of this internal review, I have made further enquiries with the information owners in the relevant areas of Network Rail to determine whether the subject specified in your request – ‘the re-signalling of Cornwall, and other options for capacity improvements over the Cornish Main Line’ - can be understood as relating to identifiable and specific information. The business experts agree that these are recognisable subjects and relevant information can be identified from the wording of the request. However, my colleagues have also pointed out that, as these subjects have been under discussion for a number of years, a large quantity and range of information may be relevant to your request, as you ask for ‘all information ‘.

The Information Commissioner’s guidance addresses this point specifically:

‘….we consider that the term “too general a manner” only relates to requests for information that are too vague, unclear or non-specific. We distinguish this from requests that might be considered ‘too big’, relating to too extensive an amount of information, which may be covered by regulation 12(4)(b) (“manifestly unreasonable”).’

7 https://ico.org.uk/media/for- organisations/documents/1619/requests_formulated_in_too_general_a_manner_eir_guidance.pdf

10

I therefore conclude that it was not appropriate to apply the exception under regulation 12(4)(c) to your request, as the request is not too general and the information you are seeking can be identified from the wording of your request. However, I also need to consider whether regulation 12(4)(b) may apply, due to the broad scope of the request in seeking “all information” about the specified subjects for a number of years.

Whether regulation 12(4)b of EIR applied to the request

Regulation 12(4)(b) of EIR provides that:

‘12(4) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(a), a public authority may refuse to disclose information to the extent that – (b) the request for information is manifestly unreasonable’

This means that the range of information sought by a request is so broad that it would impose a significant burden on the public authority to retrieve and review all the requested information for disclosure.

The Information Commissioner has published guidance on the regulation, which advises that 8:

‘18. … the exception at regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR can apply if the cost or burden of dealing with a request is too great.

Example This position was confirmed, again in the Upper Tribunal case of Craven v The Information Commissioner and the Department of Energy and Climate Change [2012] UKUT442 (AAC).

“Taking the position under the EIR first, it must be right that a public authority is entitled to refuse a single extremely burdensome request under regulation 12(4)(b) as “manifestly unreasonable”, purely on the basis that the cost of compliance would be too great (assuming, of course, it is also satisfied that the public interest test favours maintaining the exception)…’

19. In assessing whether the cost or burden of dealing with a request is “too great”, public authorities will need to consider the proportionality of the burden or costs involved and decide whether they are clearly or obviously unreasonable.

8 https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisations/documents/1615/manifestly-unreasonable-requests.pdf

11

In the current case, your request is for: ‘...all information, including correspondence with other authorities and government departments, that you hold relating to the re- signalling of Cornwall, and other options for capacity improvements over the Cornish Main Line.’

I note that Network Rail’s response of 29 January 2016 advised you to specify a timeframe for the requested information. However, your request for an internal review did not identify any timeframe and has reiterated that you require:

‘…all information, including correspondence with other authorities and government departments, that you hold relating to the re-signalling, and where appropriate other options that have been considered for capacity improvements along the Cornish main line.’

In relation to the part of your request about correspondence, you have explained that:

‘…I would advise you concentrate on the correspondence from the Department For Transport, Cornwall Council, and Devon Council.’

I note that, in response to the advice from Network Rail, you have narrowed the scope of the part of your request which relates to correspondence. However, the overall scope of your request remains extremely broad, as it would cover every piece of recorded information held by Network Rail which makes reference to the resignalling of Cornwall and any other options for capacity improvements over the Cornish Main Line.

I have outlined below the wide range of information which falls within the scope of your request:

 The management of enhancement projects necessarily generates a substantial amount of information over a period of time.9 In relation to the resignalling of

9 In order to explain the complexity of the project management process, Network Rail uses a process called Governance for Railway Investment Projects (GRIP) to manage and control projects that enhance or renew the national rail network. GRIP divides a project into eight distinct stages. The overall approach is product rather than process driven, and within each stage an agreed set of products are delivered.

1. Output definition 2. Feasibility 3. Option selection 4. Single option development 5. Detailed design 6. Construction test and commission 7. Scheme hand back 8. Project close out

Formal stage gate reviews are held at a number of points within the GRIP lifecycle. The stage gate review process examines a project at critical stages in its lifecycle to provide assurance that it can successfully progress to the next stage.

12

Cornwall, I have been advised that in November 2011 Network Rail’s National Operating Strategy team prepared a potential signalling strategy relating to proposed changes to signalling in Cornwall and meetings on this strategy took place in early 2012. The scope of your request therefore captures any recorded information held by Network Rail concerning the resignalling of Cornwall between November 2011 and the date of your request, 6 January 2016 (i.e. a period of more than four years).

 Internal discussions took place with Network Rail’s Business Planning department about whether capital funding was available. Discussions also took place with Cornwall Council about resignalling and the council’s aspirations. It was initially proposed that renewal of signalling would take place during Network Rail’s Control Period 6 (covering 2019-2024) as part of capacity enhancements. However, it was subsequently decided to accelerate the renewal of signalling and management workshops took place to discuss the project. A GRIP 2 study was undertaken into the project and further workshops were held with local councils and with internal stakeholders in Network Rail. The resignalling project has only recently been assigned a formal project number.

 Due to the nature of the ongoing discussions and development work undertaken since 2011, recorded information is held in a variety of forms across various departments of Network Rail, including information such as records of meetings and workshops; emails and other correspondence. I have made enquiries within Network Rail and I understand that approximately 50-60 Network Rail employees have been involved in some capacity with the work in relation to resignalling of Cornwall. As your request seeks ‘all information’ in relation to this matter, it would be necessary to first identify all the individual employees who would hold information; and ask each of these individuals to conduct searches of the various locations where the information will be held, including corporate systems, individual computerised files and notebooks.

 The scope of your request also covers all emails relating to resignalling - as a sampling exercise, I have made enquiries with one employee involved in the resignalling, who has estimated that he holds hundreds of emails on this subject. Due to the numbers of staff involved in this project, on this basis even a conservative estimate would indicate that thousands of emails fall within the scope of your request. All of these emails would need to be located, retrieved and reviewed in order to comply with your request.

13

 Cornwall Council and Network Rail intend to enter into a legal agreement in relation to the resignalling project. The scope of your request also captures all the correspondence between Cornwall Council and Network Rail’s Legal Department concerning the negotiation of the agreement, as well as all internal correspondence about these negotiations.

 Your request also seeks ‘all information’ that Network Rail holds in relation to ‘other options for capacity improvements over the Cornish Main Line.’ As currently worded, this covers any recorded information concerning options for capacity improvements on the Cornish Main Line which may have been considered in the past as well as any current options for future capacity improvements which may be under consideration at the present time. As the request does not include a specified time period in which you are interested, the scope of your request includes information on options for capacity improvements over the Cornish Main Line which were considered by its predecessors (i.e. Railtrack and British Rail); this would further extend the searches that would be required to determine whether information was held that was relevant to your request.

 I appreciate that you have specified the geographic area relevant to your request - For the avoidance of doubt please regard the Cornish Main Line as the rail route between Newton Abbott and Penzance’. However, the distance by rail from Newton Abbot to Penzance is approximately 112 miles; therefore your request covers a stretch of railway line over a large geographical area, including (but not limited to) the following stations:

Newton Abbot Totnes Ivybridge Devonport Keyham St Germans Parkway Par Penzance

14

Therefore, if Network Rail holds any recorded information about any previous or current options for capacity improvements affecting any of these stations or the railway line between any of these stations, this information would also fall within the scope of your request.

It is on this basis that I conclude that compliance with your request constitutes a significant and disproportionate burden, due to the wide scope of your request and the quantity of information that would require retrieval and review. I therefore consider that your request is manifestly unreasonable and the information should be excepted from disclosure under regulation 12(4)(b).

Public interest test

The exception under regulation 12(4)(b) is subject to a public interest test to determine whether the public interest favours disclosing or withholding the information.

Factors in favour of disclosure

I consider that there is a recognised public interest in disclosure which promotes transparency in the delivery of railway infrastructure projects, as this contributes to public understanding of Network Rail’s management of and expenditure on enhancement projects that impact on the lives of daily lives of great numbers of people, as well as the environment. However, this factor must be balanced against the burden that compliance with your request would impose.

I also consider that there are a number of factors that go some way towards satisfying this public interest.

In relation to the resignalling of Cornwall, at the time of your request the Cornwall and Local Transport Board (LTB) had been informed that, in respect of mainline signalling, it had been recommended that the scheme should be split into two stages and the programme was under review. 10 Given that progress of the resignalling project and the other elements of the Cornwall Rail Improvement Package are being scrutinised by the LTB and the papers relating to the scheme are publicly available, I consider that this reduces the public interest in disclosing the requested information. I have provided further advice and assistance in relation to the work of the LTB in the next section of this letter.

10 Minutes, Cornwall and Isles of Scilly Local Transport Board, 9 December 2015 https://democracy.cornwall.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=926&MId=6803&Ver=4

15

Further information is also publicly available:

 In relation to other options for capacity improvements over the Cornish Main Line, I can advise you that Network Rail publishes geographical Route Strategies, which develop options to make best use of the existing network and options for infrastructure enhancements. Further information about the Route Strategies are available on the Network Rail website at this link:

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/long-term-planning-process/route-studies/

 In October 2014, Network Rail carried out a consultation on the Western Route Strategy (an area including Cornwall) and the consultation draft of the strategy, consultation responses and the final version of the strategy are available on the Network Rail website at this link:

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/long-term-planning-process/western-route-study/

I consider that this further reduces the public interest in disclosure, as these publications provide relevant information about Network Rail’s considerations in relation to options for capacity improvements.

Factors in favour of withholding the information

In the discussion above, I have provided details of the wide-ranging searches that Network Rail would need to conduct in order to comply with your request in its present wording. The Information Commissioner’s guidance recognises that there is a public interest in protecting public authorities from exposure to disproportionate burden or to an unjustified level of disruption in handling requests for information. The guidance acknowledges that dealing with requests which create such a burden (due to their broad scope and the time that would be required to deal with them) can place a strain on resources and impact on public authorities delivering mainstream services or answering other requests.

In this case, a large part of the burden would fall on those currently involved in working on this project, as they would each be required to conduct searches to locate and retrieve the information and then assist in further review. I therefore consider that the task of locating, retrieving and extracting the volume of information requested would have a significant impact on these individuals, and that this would serve to distract Network Rail employees from their day-to-day work on the resignalling project and in the development of any other capacity improvements over the Cornish Main Line. I therefore conclude that the balance of the public interest favours maintaining the exception in this case, and that the information should be withheld.

16

Further advice and assistance

I can advise you that, if you are able to narrow the scope of your request to one specific aspect of the resignalling project or other capacity improvements on the Cornwall Main Line within a specified timeframe, Network Rail would be able to consider such a refined request. In order to assist you, I have been advised that key documents in connection with the resignalling project are as follows:

 Client Remit 17 August 2012  Minutes of meeting with Cornwall Council, 22 October 2012  Client to sponsor remit February 2013  Approval letter from Office of Rail Regulation, 20 May 2014  Application to Network Rail Acceptance Panel 21 May 2014

We also hold the following documents about the resignalling project; please note that, as the project is currently live, these documents are subject to revision as the project develops:

 Route Requirements Document March 2015  Detailed Route Requirements Document

I should also advise that, should you wish to proceed with a narrowed request, we would then need to consider whether any exceptions under EIR or exemptions under FOIA applied to the information requested.

As indicated previously, further relevant information is available in the public domain:

 The Cornwall and Isles of Scilly LTB is working with the Department for Transport and the rail industry on the proposed Cornwall Rail Improvements Package, which includes the resignalling of Cornwall. The LTB’s website includes agendas, papers and minutes for each of its meetings, including papers concerning the Cornwall Rail Improvements Package. The meeting papers are available at this link:

https://democracy.cornwall.gov.uk/ieListMeetings.aspx?CId=926&Year=0

 The Scheme Prioritisation Summary for resignalling is available on Cornwall Council’s website at this link:

https://www.cornwall.gov.uk/media/3623342/31-07-2013-Mainline-Signalling- Scheme-Summary-Final.pdf

17

 In addition, the Cabinet of Cornwall Council made a number of decisions in relation to the Cornwall Rail Improvements Package at its meeting on 30 July 2014 and the papers for that meeting are available at this link:

https://democracy.cornwall.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=577&MId=5811& Ver=4

I hope that this explanation and information is of assistance.

Yours sincerely

Colin Bendall Information Officer – Compliance & Appeals

Next steps

If you are not content with the outcome of this internal review, you have the right to apply directly to the Information Commissioner for a decision. The Information Commissioner can be contacted at:

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

Please quote the reference number at the top of this letter in all future communications.

18