FOI/202100146890 · FOI/EIR · partially withheld
A83 Rest and Be Thankful road closure: EIR release
Information requested
1. How many times has the road been closed since 2007? 2. How many times has the road been closed from 2020-2021? 3. What was the year with the greatest number of closures?
Response
As the information you have requested is 'environmental information' for the purposes of the Environmental Information (Scotland) Regulations 2004 (EIRs), we are required to deal with your request under those Regulations. We are applying the exemption at section 39(2) of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA), so that we do not also have to deal with your request under FOISA. This exemption is subject to the 'public interest test'. Therefore, taking account of all the circumstances of this case, we have considered if the public interest in disclosing the information outweighs the public interest in applying the exemption. We have found that, on balance, the public interest lies in favour of upholding the exemption, because there is no public interest in dealing with the same request under two different regimes. This is essentially a technical point and has no material effect on the outcome of your request. 1. Since 2007 the A83, at the Rest and Be Thankful, has been closed on 16 occasions. 2. Between 2020 and 2021 the A83, at the Rest and Be Thankful, was closed on 3 occasions. 3. The year with the highest amount of closures was 2012. About FOI The Scottish Government is committed to publishing all information released in response to Freedom of Information requests. View all FOI responses at http://www.gov.scot/foi-responses.
Contact Please quote the FOI reference Central Enquiry Unit Email: ceu@gov.scot Phone: 0300 244 4000 The Scottish Government St Andrews House Regent Road Edinburgh EH1 3DG
Detected exemption language
We are applying the exemption at section 39(2) of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA), so that we do not also have to deal with your request under FOISA. This exemption is subject to the 'public interest test'. Therefore, taking account of all the circumstances of this case, we have considered if the public interest in disclosing the information outweighs the public interest in applying the exemption. We have found that, on balance, the public interest lies in favour of upholding the exemption, because there is no public interest in dealing with the same request under two different regimes.
Attachments
No attachments found.