IR 44563: subsequent clarification and new request

TRANSCRIPT OF COUNCIL CORRESPONDENCE
Council clarification referring to the campaign’s email of 12 October 2026. The council confirms that it will treat the further questions as a new information request received on 12 October. The reply’s sent date and new reference are not shown in the retained text.

Mr. Forbes,

I refer to your email dated 12/10/26 in respect of the decision notice issued by the panel in respect of IR 44563.

In terms of the panel’s decision, we apologise for our omission and can confirm that s.30(b)(i) and (ii) were applied in terms of the assessments which were specified in your initial request for the reasons outlined: 

Any assessment of reasonable alternatives to closure.
Any assessment of educational benefits.
Any assessment of community impact.
Any assessment of travel implications.
Any records showing why closure was considered the most appropriate response.
I apologise for this omission on our part.

I note from your email that this seems to seek additional information that falls out with the scope of both your initial request and your initial submissions to the panel.

I have therefore arranged for your email to be forwarded to the relevant team for processing as a new FOI request on the following grounds with this being taken as being received on 12/10/26:

The precise identity of the document or combination of documents, constituting the preliminary assessment said to have been completed in April 2026, the title, date, authors details and any details of any recorded approval or sign-off in respect of those documents.
Whether there is any recorded basis for the statement made by Stephen Flynn MSP.
Please identify the records supporting the correct chronology.
The nature of the draft assessments withheld, their dates, confirmation of whether they were held prior to 15/08/26, and whether they concern the claimed April preliminary assessment or later work on the consultation proposal.
Whether the review has identified additional information within the scope of your request
Whether the searches for information included the alternative spelling ‘Banchory Devenick’.
What date range, email accounts and SharePoint locations were searched.
Whether relevant records held by Property and Facilities Management, Senior Leadership and Committee Support were searched or otherwise checked.
Whether attachments, earlier versions and approval records were included for consideration and disclosure.
Whether the review prompted further searchers and, if so, their scope and outcome.
In terms of the assessment of educational benefits, community impact, travel implications and the reasons for considering closure – the distinction between the later assessments and the preliminary assessment said to have been completed in April.
Whether any earlier versions or assessments covering those matters are held, if so their identity and confirmation as to whether they have been disclosed or withheld.
 
On a separate note it is perhaps worth noting that FOI only applies to recorded information, it does not for example cover, someone’s views, thoughts or opinions, unless these have been recorded in someway.

If you remain dissatisfied at the review panel’s decision then the next step would be for you to seek appeal through the Scottish Information Commissioner and details of how to do this can be found within the panel’s decision notice which was previously issued to you in this case.

Kind Regards,

Clerk to the Review Panel