Publication - FOI/EIR release

Works at junctions 5 & 6 of the M74: FOI release

Published: 24 Sep 2018

Information request and response under the Environmental Information (Scotland) Regulations 2004.

Published:
24 Sep 2018
Works at junctions 5 & 6 of the M74: FOI release
FOI reference: FOI/18/01991  
Date received: 23 July 2018  
Date responded: 30 August 2018
Information requested
Pertaining to junction 5 & 6 of the M74 (South and Northbound)
  1. Details of complaint made 28th-31st March 2018 pertaining to Locus (Junction 5 & 6 of the M74, South and Northbound).
  2. All Risk Assessments pertaining to work being done at the Locus from 1st March 2018 until 6th April 2018.
  3. You refer to metal debris being found, can you be more specific as to what this was, bar, spoon, ROAD SIGN INSERT?
  4. Exact sections and details of legislation this claim is viewed.
  5. The last letter states AMEY did not have any TM on site on the 29th March. I never asked if AMEY direct had this, you refer to work being done at the locus on your inspection sheet attached, can you provide a plan showing how this signage was set out, times and dates this was in-situ.
  6. Record of any defects relating to M8-267147-72424 and how these had been rectified.
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: Details of complaint made 28th-31st March 2018 pertaining to Locus (Junction 5 & 6 of the M74, South and Northbound)

By way of background, Scottish Roads Partnership (SRP) is the contractor for the M8 M73 M74 Motorway Improvements Project which includes the M74 Junction 5, and up to generally the intersection of the northbound slip roads of M74 Junction 6. Our Operating Company Scotland Transerv is responsible from the intersection of the northbound slips at M74 junction 6, including junction 6.
While our aim is to provide information whenever possible, in this instance Transport Scotland does not have the information you have requested. Under the terms of the exception at regulation 10(4)(a) of the EIRs (information not held), Transport Scotland is not required to provide information which it does not have.
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. While we recognise there may be some public interest in details complaints made pertaining to Junction 5 and 6 of the M74, clearly we cannot provide information which we do not hold.
 
2: All Risk Assessments pertaining to work being done at the Locus from 1st March 2018 until 6th April 2018

An exception under regulation 10(5)(e) of the EIRs (substantial prejudice to confidentiality of commercial information) applies to your request for risk assessments pertaining to work being
carried out. This exception applies because disclosure of this particular information would, or would be likely to, prejudice substantially the confidentiality of commercial information provided by Scottish Roads Partnership (SRP), the contractor for the project, and thus cause substantial harm to its commercial interests.
This exception 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 exception. We have found that, on balance, the public interest lies in favour of upholding the exception. We recognise that there is a public
interest in disclosing information as part of open and transparent government, and to help account for the expenditure of public money. However, there is a greater public interest in protecting the commercial interests of companies which enter into Scottish Government
contracts.
 
3: You refer to metal debris being found, can you be more specific as to what this was, bar, spoon, ROAD SIGN INSERT?

The debris found on the road has been confirmed through photographs as being wood and not metal as it seems you may have previously been advised.
 
4: Exact sections and details of legislation this claim is viewed.

While our aim is to provide information whenever possible, in this instance Transport Scotland does not have the information you have requested. Under the terms of our contracts between our contractors and the Scottish Ministers, the contractor is required to deal directly with claimants with respect to all claims in relation to the construction and operation of the above project. Under the terms of the exception at regulation 10(4)(a) of the EIRs (information not
held), Transport Scotland is not required to provide information which it does not have.
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. While we recognise there may be some public interest in details of the above request clearly we cannot provide information which we do
not hold.
 
5: The last letter states AMEY did not have any TM on site on the 29th March. I never asked if AMEY direct had this, you refer to work being done at the locus on your inspection sheet attached, can you provide a plan showing how this signage was set out, times and dates this was in-situ?

SRP implemented a hard shoulder closure between junction 5 and junction 6 Hamilton northbound which was in place between 09:30hrs and 15:30hrs on 29 March 2018.
SRP also implemented a hard shoulder closure at the M74 southbound, around junction 5. This was installed 20.00hrs 25 March 2018 and remained in place continuously until 01.55hrs 29 March 2018 when it was removed.
The attached titled C021000097_C_5079revD HS01 is the associated traffic management plan which was used for both works outlined above.
Furthermore, a hard shoulder closure was in place at M74 Junction 6 northbound between 28 March 2018 09:30hrs and 29 March 2018 15:30hrs. The plan titled 8121 – TM04 and 8121 – TM05 is the associated traffic management plan for these works.
 
6: Record of any defects relating to M8-267147-72424 and how these had been rectified.

I can confirm that the defect number M8-267147-72424 refers to a pothole patch repair carried out on the M74 southbound between junction 5 and junction 6, which was located in lane 3 of 4, adjacent to the tourist information sign. This pothole repair was complete at 03:30 hrs on 6 April 2018.
 
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 Andrew's House 
Regent Road 
Edinburgh 
EH1 3DG