We are aware that an Independent Research Group has for many months been looking into issues surrounding the 23 hectares of land in central Giffnock that is known as 'Braidbar Quarry'.

We understand that the findings may be published in a few weeks and we will report accordingly.

Freedom of Information Request submitted to ERC.

Request under the Freedom of Information (Scotland Act) 2002
Could you oblige and please send me all recorded information in relation to Legal Opinions and Memorials in relation to Braidbar Quarry, Giffnock.

I understand that legal advice was sought in 1983, 1990 and 1998, however I am unaware if further advice was sought at other or later times since 1998.

I am also interested in any recorded information between council officers, council officers and elected members and vice versa, council officers and outside bodies and vice versa.

I would like the information provided as electronic copies.

I understand it is my right to receive your response within 20 working days of receipt of this request.

Kind regards

Council response

Disclosure of the Braidbar Counsels’ opinions and memorials thereto were subject to a decision of the Scottish Information Commissioner a few years ago (see www.itspublicknowledge.info/Applications.../2012/201200167.aspx).

The Commissioner upheld the Council’s decision to withhold this information from disclosure on the basis that it is covered by the exception at 10(5)(d) of the Environmental Information Regulations (Scotland).

I take the view that the consideration of the applicability of that exemption - detailed in paras 28 to 51 of the above - remains accurate and that these documents can not therefore be disclosed.

In addition to the Opinions referenced in your message, our Legal Services also asked for an Opinion from Scott Blair, Advocate, in 2012 and this was renewed in December 2017. Again, however, the argument detailed above would also apply to these later Opinions and associated documentation.

I am sorry that I am not able to offer you a more positive response.

Application for Review

Dear Mr Mahon,

I request a review of how East Renfrewshire Council have handled my request for information.

I am unaware if you were responsible for requesting any of these memorandums, or were the recipient, however if you were would you consider your position as the reviewing officer to be compromised.

My reasons for requesting a review are as follows.

There are five memorandums in total.

Three of which have been subject to a finding by the Scottish Information Commissioner in 2012.

The three relate to 1983, 1990 and 1998.

It is my contention that the Commissioners decision was pre the Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA) and the General Data Protection Regulations 2018. (GDPR)

In addition new information has come to light that makes a significantly stronger case in relation to the public interest than was placed before the Commissioner in 2012.

The other two relate to memorandums in 2012 and 2017.

My application was refused in terms of Section 10(5) of the Environmental Information Regulations (Scotland). (EIR)

As you are aware there is a strong emphasis within the EIR that public interest is paramount.

In my opinion no consideration was given to the significant public interest in the ‘Braidbar’ area since 2012.

No consideration was given to the fact that circumstances had significantly altered since that decision was made.

With regards the last two memorandums 2012 and 2017, no consideration was given to the public interest test.

These documents have never been the subject of a Commissioners decision, yet the decision regarding the memorandums made in 2012 by the Commissioner was then applied to these documents. (2012 and 2017)

No public interest test was applied to these documents,(2012 and 2017) or ancillary documents that were requested in my original Freedom of Information Request (FOI).

I notice that the 2012 decision appears to have been concerned with regards to the alleged ‘blighted houses’.

My interest in this matter has nothing to do with the alleged ‘blighted houses’.

My interest, and I am aware that my reasons for the request are not relevant, are with regards to the apparent danger to the public from the potential collapse of large areas within the land which is approximately 27 hectares, and the alleged contamination of surface water.

I also note that it was claimed that the potential regarding litigation was one of the reasons for withholding the information. (2012)

I am aware that since the first report in 1983 there have been no litigation claims and I would have to suggest that to continue to use the potential of litigation as a reason to deny the public access to these documents for over 37 years cannot be justified.

As you are aware the councils recent consultation regarding the Local Development Plan 2 raised the issue of ‘Braidbar Quarry’.

‘Braidbar Quarry’ is actually misleading as the land concerned covers the sites of at least four quarries where toxic waste was dumped.

I have recently obtained via FOI over 5,000 documents, many of which indicate that there is a significant danger of underground collapse and that the vast amount of water within the quarries is toxic.

There are also reports that the adjacent surface water has been found to have chromium levels approximately 400 times the UK standard.

The documents indicate that ‘slag’ which contain chromium was dumped into the quarries and when mixed with water leach chromium.

I am also aware from these disclosures that the memorandums appear to relate to the councils ‘liability’.

I am of the opinion that it is very much in the public interest that these documents be disclosed.

As this matter is of serious concern and benefit to the public and some of these details are already appearing on the internet and being discussed by the public.

It would appear to me that disclosure would enhance scrutiny of the councils decision-making processes and thereby improve accountability and participation.

It would also contribute to ensuring effective oversight of expenditure of public funds and that the public obtain value for money.

Also that disclosure will permit the public to be adequately informed of any danger to public health or safety, or to the environment.

Disclosure would contribute to ensuring that the council with its regulatory responsibilities under Environmental legislation, is adequately discharging its functions.

In particular disclosure would contribute to a debate on this matter which is of significant public interest.

I understand that it is my right to have a response within 20 working days.

Kind Regards

REQUEST FOR INFORMATION - UPDATE

Thank you for your recent clarified request, received by SEPA on 13/01/2020

I am writing to apologise that we have been unable to issue you with a response to your request within the 20 working day limit.

I acknowledge that SEPA has clearly not met its duty to provide information within statutory timescales, as laid out in the Environmental Information (Scotland) Regulations 2004. We have not met the level of service I would expect us to provide when responding to requests for information. Please accept my unreserved apology, on behalf of the agency, for the extended delays in handling your request.

I can advise that we are currently making progress with your request however due to the volume of documents that we have gathered and the requirement to review each of the documents individually to make a release decision, we have been unable to issue your response today

I apologise for this delay. I can assure you we are working on your request as a matter of priority and we are hoping to issue you a response by as soon as possible.

In the meantime, if you wish to seek a formal review of our failure to provide a full response by the due date, you have 40 working days from the date of this email to request a formal review from SEPA at:

Access to Information

SEPA