FOI request (FOIR-104834967)

1. Could you please provide me with the income received from car parking charges in Hastings Country Park since charging was introduced. Please break down by year. Please break down between income received from parking payment points and from parking permits.

2. Parking payment points across the country park have been out of order since September 2018. Could you please let me know how much revenue has been lost since the parking parking points became unusable.

3. Please supply me with all correspondence both internally within HBC and externally between HBC and other bodies concerning the broken parking payment points.

NOTICE OF REFUSAL

The information requested to receive all correspondence both internally within HBC and externally between HBC and other bodies concerning the broken parking payment points is partly exempt information under Section 36 of the Freedom of Information Act 'Prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs'

Section 36 relates to information requested may be exempt if in the reasonable opinion of a qualified person disclosure of the information. I can confirm the qualified person has given that opinion (b) would or would be likely to inhibit.

i. The free and frank provision of advice

i. The free and frank exchange of views for the purpose of deliberations; or

(c) would otherwise prejudice or would be likely to prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs.

The exemption afforded by Section 36 is subject to what is known as the 'public interest test'. When applying the test in a particular case a public authority is deciding whether the public interest is better served by non-disclosure than by disclosure.

Although the Freedom of Information Act does not define 'in the public interest', there is a presumption under Freedom of Information that openness is in the public interest. In applying the public interest test a public authority will take into account the distinction that has been often made by courts between things that are in the public interest, and things that merely interest the public. Where applicants have not identified public interest considerations succinctly or accurately, the public authority has a responsibility under the Act to make their own assessment of the public interest considerations in the particular case.

We have identified the following public interest factors that may be seen as encouraging the disclosure of information:

a) To promote understanding and debate on current issues

b) To promote transparency and public accountability

We consider these factors to be of limited relevance in relation to the information in question.

Public interest factors seen as encouraging non-disclosure are, generally, the exemptions themselves. In consideration of this matter we came to the following conclusions:

1. Maintaining the confidentiality of policy discussions in the interests of good governance and the perceived threat to candour and boldness within the organisation.

2. Consideration of options and the exchange of views within a 'safe space' to allow public authorities to conduct policy decisions frankly and without inhibition.

3. The way in which the authority run's its car parks in terms of enforcement and methods of payment increases the degree of harm and likely prejudice or inhibition that could be suffered to officers and councillors knowing the content of discussions could be disclosed was likely to be severe and be compromised.

4. It is possible that if disclosed the information will be published on social media.

In weighing the factors for and against disclosure we have concluded that the likely benefit to the applicant and the wider public of disclosure is outweighed by the likely prejudice caused by such disclosure and that therefore the public interest is better served by non-disclosure.

Notice of Refusal

Please note that I consider the information you have requested concerning income received and revenue lost from car parking charges at Hastings Country Park and also parts of the correspondence concerning the broken parking machines to be exempt information under S31(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act in that disclosure of that information would be likely to prejudice the prevention or detection of crime.

The exemption afforded by S31(1)(a) is subject to what is known as the 'public interest test'. When applying the test in a particular case a public authority is deciding whether the public interest is better served by non-disclosure than by disclosure.

Although the Freedom of Information Act does not define 'in the public interest', there is a presumption under Freedom of Information that openness is in the public interest. In applying the public interest test a public authority will take into account the distinction that has been often made by courts between things that are in the public interest, and things that merely interest the public. Where applicants have not identified public interest considerations succinctly or accurately, the public authority has a responsibility under the Act to make their own assessment of the public interest considerations in the particular case.

We have identified the following public interest factors that may be seen as encouraging the disclosure of information:

a) furtherance of understanding and participation in the public debate of issues of the day

b) promotion of accountability and transparency by public authorities in the decision they make and the spending of public money

We consider these factors to be generally of limited or no relevance in relation to the information in question.

Public interest factors seen as encouraging non-disclosure are, generally, the exemptions themselves. In consideration of this matter we came to the following conclusions:

a) that there is no evidence of a wider public (rather than individual) interest in disclosure.

b) that the disclosure of the information would be likely to prejudice the prevention or detection of crime.

c) that the nature of such prejudice is real and substantial and that there is a real and significant risk of such prejudice.

d) that crime associated with the parking machines has a substantial detrimental effect upon other individuals in the neighbourhood and wider community.

e) that the motives behind the request (albeit not provided to us) have no relevance since disclosure would mean the information would be in the public domain.

In weighing the factors for and against disclosure we have concluded that the likely benefit to the applicant and the wider public of disclosure is outweighed by the likely prejudice caused by such disclosure and that therefore the public interest is better served by non-disclosure.