Back to index Original on gov.scot

· FOI/EIR · partially withheld

Risk assessments NE Scotland roads grass verges/shrubbery: EIR release

Published
2018-06-07
Received
Responded
Directorate
Economic Development Directorate
Topic
Exemptions
20, 39(2)

Information requested

Copy of the risk assessment for BEAR Scotland in respect of the contract they have with Transport Scotland for works carried out to maintain the grass verges and shrubbery alongside the trunk roads and minor roads in the North East of Scotland.

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

Response

Please refer to Annex A which is the risk assessment for Bear Scotland in relation to the maintenance of grass verges and shrubbery.

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

Similar releases