From: Peter Silverman [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: 01 July 2010 17:36
To: Steve Field (Ops Manager UK Highways)
Subject: M40 / litter
Thank you for taking the time to meet with me this afternoon. Please note this e-mail and any reply will not appear on my web site.
You explained that Arun Nugent was your day to day contact at the HA.
You mentioned that a new procedure for dealing with litter had been introduced and you agreed to get a copy to me. (I will want to post this on my web site).
You explained that, when I requested minutes of meetings at which litter was discussed I had not been supplied with any – not because there were no meetings – but because there were none in which litter was discussed.
I have checked, as promised, with the Campaign for Freedom Of Information about whether info requests under the Environmental Information Regulations made to a contractor should be supplied via the public body to whom they are contracted. They pointed out to me the definition of a “public authority” that I included in my e-mail of 8th April which I have cut and pasted below. UK Highways M40 Ltd for the purposes of the regulations are a “public authority” and, like all public bodies, subject to the a duty to make available environmental information on request. So please can I have the info requested on 10th June?
On the way home we noted that the sections from Banbury to Beaconsfield were in good order but things deteriorated gradually from there to the London end of the motorway. I appreciate that these are the sections in which the most litter is generated. However, that surely means relatively more recourses should be applied there to achieve an acceptable standard.
I noted what you said about skilled operatives having to do litter picking. One approach would be to have dedicated litter picking crews made up of less skilled people.
I think that’s all. I look forward to receiving the litter picking schedule and a copy of the new cleaning procedure. If there is a problem please let me know.