Back to index Original on gov.scot

FOI/202400434910 · FOI/EIR · partially withheld

Planning document for Warblaw Hill Afforestation Scheme: EIR release

Published
2024-11-26
Received
2024-10-01
Responded
2024-10-29
Directorate
Topic
Farming and rural, Public sector
Exemptions
20, 39(2)

Information requested

I would further like to enquire on the existing forestry plantation on Warblaw Hill, Langholm (planted 2017-18), please can you provide me with the planning documentation for this 347ha site, planted on behalf of the Duke of Buccleuch.

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.

Please find attached a copy of the consent (planning) document for Cockplay Afforestation Scheme, EIA Ref Number: O349O1232.

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

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