EIR/202500463523 Review of 202500459235 · FOI/EIR · partially withheld
Argyll and Bute Council correspondence regarding the proposed Oban Harbour Revision Order: EIR Review
Information requested
Original request 202500459235
All correspondence between Transport Scotland and Argyll and Bute Council regarding the proposed Oban Harbour Revision Order since, and including, 7 November 2024.
Your request has asked for the inclusion of relevant notes of any meetings (on-line or in person), telephone calls, emails and any written communication.
Response
I have now completed my review of our response to your request under the Environmental Information (Scotland) Regulations 2004 (EIRs) for case 202500459235.
You asked for Transport Scotland to provide you with suitably redacted copies of all correspondence between Transport Scotland and Argyll and Bute Council regarding the proposed Oban Harbour Revision Order since, and including, 7 November 2024. Your request has asked for the inclusion of relevant notes of any meetings (on-line or in person), telephone calls, emails and any written communication.
I have concluded that the original decision was partially incorrect and that the exemption under Section 29(1)(a) was not appropriate in these circumstances. I must apologise for the incorrect exemption being applied. Whilst looking at the original request I can see that confusion arose due to the Harbour Order process still being underway and the perception that an FOI exemption could be applied.
I have enclosed a copy of some of the information you requested in the attached documents.
About FOI
The Scottish Government is committed to publishing all information released in response to Freedom of Information requests. View all FOI responses at https://www.gov.scot/foi-responses.
Detected exemption language
I have concluded that the original decision was partially incorrect and that the exemption under Section 29(1)(a) was not appropriate in these circumstances. I must apologise for the incorrect exemption being applied. Whilst looking at the original request I can see that confusion arose due to the Harbour Order process still being underway and the perception that an FOI exemption could be applied.