Publication - FOI/EIR release

Todrig woodland creation scheme: EIR Appeal

Published: 20 January 2026
Topic: Environment and climate change, Farming and rural, Public sector
FOI reference: EIR/202500462880 Appeal of 202500457766
Date received: 23 April 2025
Date responded: 2 November 2025

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

Information requested

Original Request - 202500457766

I would like to make a FOI request in respect of forestry grant scheme 25FGS84239, Todrig NWC.

Please could Scottish Forestry provide all information relating to this application since 1 January 2021.

Please provide all correspondence between:

1. Scottish Forestry and Pryor and Rickett Silviculture and any previous forestry agents

2. Scottish Forestry and Gresham House and any of their agents

3. Scottish Forestry and NatureScot

4. Scottish Forestry and Scottish Borders Council

5. Scottish Forestry and all other consultees and parties

Please provide:

6. All previous planting plans from that first proposed to the latest proposed;

7. All Scottish Forestry casework for this application.

8. A breakdown (with grand totals) of the provisional grant value of the project.

9. All ecology, habitat, bird surveys, vegetation surveys, landscape, archaeology and other reports.

10. Any other information not mentioned under points 1-9.

Response

I am writing with an update on an EIRs request of yours and an open case with the Office of the Scottish Information Commissioner (OSIC), our review reference 202500462880. This request asked for –

“I would like to make a FOI request in respect of forestry grant scheme 25FGS84239, Todrig NWC.

Please could Scottish Forestry provide all information relating to this application since 1 January 2021.

Please provide all correspondence between:

1. Scottish Forestry and Pryor and Rickett Silviculture and any previous forestry agents
2. Scottish Forestry and Gresham House and any of their agents
3. Scottish Forestry and NatureScot
4. Scottish Forestry and Scottish Borders Council
5. Scottish Forestry and all other consultees and parties

Please provide:

6. All previous planting plans from that first proposed to the latest proposed;
7. All Scottish Forestry casework for this application.
8. A breakdown (with grand totals) of the provisional grant value of the project.
9. All ecology, habitat, bird surveys, vegetation surveys, landscape, archaeology and other reports.
10. Any other information not mentioned under points 1-9.

As part of responding to OSIC’s appeal case, I have revisited the review response and we are no longer relying on regulation 10(4)(b) – Manifestly unreasonable and as a result of this decision we have collected, sifted and redacted all documents that fall under your request.
I am now disclosing the documents that fall within scope of your EIR 202500457766 request.

Exceptions at regulations 11(2) of the EIRs (personal information of a third party), 10(5)(e) of the EIRs (confidentiality of commercial or industrial information), 10(5)(g) of the EIRs (protection of the environment) and 10(4)(d) of the EIRs (material in the course of completion, unfinished documents, and incomplete data) applies to some of the information that is within scope of your request, and this information has been redacted or withheld in full.

The reasons why each exception applies are set out below.

Regulation 11(2) of the EIRs (personal information of a third party) applies because disclosing this data would contravene the data protection principles in Article 5(1) of the General Data Protection Regulation and in section 34(1) of the Data Protection Act 2018.
Regulation 10(5)(e) of the EIRs (confidentiality of commercial or industrial information) applies due to releasing the location of private water supplies. This exemption also applies to invoices.

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. However, in this instance interest is outweighed by the public interest arising from ensuring the business in question is able to conduct financial transactions in relation to invoicing without undue additional risk.

This exception also applies to the location of private water supplies which relates to information supplied to the Conservancy and Scottish Forestry’s National Office in its role as a regulator by members of the community, the applicant or other public bodies, revealing the exact location of private water supplies (PWS), which are vulnerable to disruption or pollution. We have concluded that, on balance, the public interest supports upholding the exception, as disclosing this specific type of information would have an adverse effect on households and businesses depend on these supplies.

Regulation 10(5)(g) of the EIRs (substantial prejudice to protection of the environment) applies to some of the information you have requested. This exception applies because disclosure of this information would, or would be likely to, prejudice substantially the protection of the environment to which the information relates. It would make public the locations of breeding sites of species protected under Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, there are lists of protected bird species at Schedule 1 and of protected animal species at Schedule 5. Badgers are protected under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992. The British Ornithology Trust keeps a list of Birds of Conservation Concern (BoCC), and Scottish Forestry use the red list as an addition to Schedule 1 above when deciding which species to redact.

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. However, there is a greater public interest in protecting the environment to which the information relates. The public interest arising from the protection of these protected species from the potential risk that would arise from publishing their exact breeding locations, for example from disturbance and nest destruction. Black grouse lekking sites and badger setts are common information held in maps and surveys that are being withheld or redacted.

Regulation 10(4)(d) of the EIRs (material in the course of completion, unfinished documents, and incomplete data) applies to 3 documents which are being withheld from release as it is related to information that is actively being worked or incomplete data and is subject to modifications. The project in question has not progressed to the clearing stage, and the applicant has halted work on this development due to it being under judicial review; neither a contract nor a draft contract is currently in place, so the contract has not yet been scored. It was decided that the estimate and the final cost of the woodland creation grant depend on the terms of the contract signed by both parties. Since no contract exists, the total cost of the project is not a separate or standalone piece of work. Therefore, no costs to the taxpayer can be estimated or calculated at this stage.

This exception is a qualified exception and, as such, it is subject to the ‘public interest test’, and we have a statutory duty to apply it. Therefore, considering all the circumstances of this case and any adverse effects of disclosing incomplete data or data still being collected, we have assessed whether the public interest in releasing the information outweighs the public interest in maintaining the exception. We have concluded that, overall, the public interest favours upholding the exception. While we recognise there may be a public interest in releasing all the information, the incomplete and partial internal data, along with ongoing data collection, could cause confusion or even mislead. The project has been reviewed by Scottish Forestry and listed on the public register; however, it has not yet progressed to the final contract stage. The project is subject to judicial review, and the applicant ceased working on it when the judicial review was initiated. Although a draft application for Forestry Grant Scheme funding was submitted, it has not progressed to the review or award stage. Therefore, there is no contract or provisional contract in place to provide information on project costing. The premature disclosure of incomplete data, data still in the process of completion, or incomplete data could adversely affect the impartiality of operational and application processes and could also mislead public debate.

One document within scope of your request, the Scottish Borders Woodland Strategy is available through the Scottish Borders Council website Planning guidance: Woodland strategy | Scottish Borders Council

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.