26 Feb 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Ministry of Defence (MOD) seeking a list of all editions of the document ‘JSP900: UK Targeting Policy’, copies of each edition and copies of any drafts. The MOD provided the complainant with a list of each edition – some in its initial response and some at the internal review stage - but refused to comply with the remainder of the request on the basis of section 14(1) (vexatious) because of the burden on doing so. The Commissioner has concluded that the MOD is entitled to refuse to comply with those parts of the request on the basis of section 14(1) of FOIA. However, she has also concluded that the MOD breached section 10(1) by failing to provide the complainant with a list of all editions of the document in question within 20 working days.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 14
View Ministry of Defence
26 Feb 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a report relating to SEND provision in the borough. Halton Borough Council disclosed some information and withheld other information under the exemption for commercial interests (section 43(2)). The Commissioner’s decision is that Halton Borough Council has correctly applied the exemption in section 43(2) to withhold some of the requested information but that, in relation to some of the information, the public interest favours disclosure. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Disclose the information identified in the confidential annex.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43(2)
View Halton Council
26 Feb 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Warwickshire Police about traffic speeding enforcement. Warwickshire Police has failed to respond to this request. The Commissioner requires Warwickshire Police to provide the complainant with a response to this request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA. Warwickshire Police must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
25 Feb 2020Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested correspondence between Hastings Borough Council (the council) and its geotechnical advisors about certain conditions relating to a caravan park site licence. The council refused the request, confirming during the course of the Commissioner’s investigation that the information had been withheld under regulation 12(5)(d) –confidentiality of proceedings, and regulation 12(5)(e)- commercial confidentiality. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council is entitled to rely on regulation (12)(5)(e) as its basis for withholding some of the requested information, and the public interest rests in favour of maintaining this exception. However, the council has failed to demonstrate that regulation 12(5)(d), or regulation 12(5)(e), is engaged in respect of the remaining information that has been withheld. Furthermore, the Commissioner has found that the council has breached regulation 14(2) of the EIR by failing to issue a refusal notice within 20 working days of re
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(d); EIR 12(5)(e); EIR 14(2)(1); EIR 14(3)(a); EIR 14(3)(b)
View Hastings Borough Council
25 Feb 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (the Council). The Council initially refused the request under regulation 12(5)(b) 12(4)(a), regulation 12(4)(e), regulation 12(5)(f) and regulation 13 of the EIR. The Council subsequently sought to rely on the exception at regulation 12(4)(b) on the basis that the request was manifestly unreasonable. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council is entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(b), and the public interest in maintaining the exception outweighs the public interest in disclosure. The Commissioner does however find that the Council failed to comply with some procedural requirements of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require any remedial steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0124 appeal withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea
25 Feb 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the London Borough of Southwark Council’s (“the Council”) investigations, warnings and penalties regarding Council property tenants involved in unauthorised short-term lets. The Council refused the request, relying on section 12(1) of the FOIA, because it estimated that the cost of compliance would exceed the appropriate limit.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council was entitled to rely on section 12(1) of the FOIA to refuse the request, and complied with its duty to provide advice and assistance under section 16.
The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12(1); FOI 16
View Southwark Council
25 Feb 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested statistical data about a shared equity scheme. The London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham had failed to respond to the request at the date of this notice. The Commissioner’s decision is that the London Borough has failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the London Borough to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: issue a substantive response, under the FOIA, to the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Hammersmith and Fulham Council
25 Feb 2020Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested a 1:50 “hybrid satellite map” of a particular street. North Yorkshire County Council refused the request under the FOIA because it was “reasonably accessible” to the applicant – albeit for a fee. It therefore relied on section 21 of the FOIA to withhold the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council should have dealt with the request under the EIR and not FOIA. She also finds that the Council does not in fact hold the requested information and therefore should have issued a refusal notice citing Regulation 12(4)(a) of the EIR. The Commissioner therefore finds that the Council failed to inform the complainant that it did not hold information and thus breached Regulation 14 of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require any further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 14; EIR 5(1); EIR 6(1)(b)
View North Yorkshire County Council
21 Feb 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a copy of the Equality Impact Assessment conducted for the Welsh Government’s plan to advance quality for transgender people. The Welsh Government stated that it did not hold the information requested. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities the Welsh Government does not hold the information requested. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Welsh Government
21 Feb 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information relating to the consideration of a planning application. The public authority withheld the information held within the scope of the requests relying on the exceptions at regulations 12(4)(d), 12(4)(e), 12(5)(b) and 12(5)(f) EIR. The Commissioner concluded that the public authority was entitled to rely on the exception at regulation 12(4)(e).
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(e)
View Hammersmith and Fulham Council
21 Feb 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from Blackburn College (the “college”) the annual programme reviews, external examiner and course consultant reports from 2012 to 2018, validation documents and minutes of internal meetings relating to engineering courses. The college refused to provide the requested information, citing section 43(2) - commercial interests. The Commissioner’s decision is that the college has correctly withheld the information under section 43(2). The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43(2)
21 Feb 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to interviews carried out by LGSCO. The Commissioner’s decision is that LGSCO has correctly cited section 44(1)(a) in response to the request. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 44
21 Feb 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to interviews carried out by LGSCO. The Commissioner’s decision is that LGSCO has correctly cited section 44(1)(a) in response to the request. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 44
21 Feb 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant asked Hastings Borough Council for the final peer review report and associated correspondence which relates to a Peer Review undertaken on the Council’s behalf by the Local Government Association. The Council confirmed that it did not intend to publish a final report but confirmed that it the report in draft format and certain other related information. The Council informed the complainant that it was withholding this information in reliance on section 36 of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that Hastings Borough Council has correctly applied the exemptions to disclosure provided by sections 36(2)(b) and 36(2)(c) of the FOIA. The Council is therefore entitled to withhold the information the complainant has asked for.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36; FOI 36(2)(c)
View Hastings Borough Council
20 Feb 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the qualifications of a specific individual. The General Medical Council (the GMC) has refused to confirm or deny it holds this information, under section 40(5B)(a)(i) of the FOIA (personal data) as to do so would disclose two individuals’ personal data. The Commissioner’s decision is as follows: The GMC can rely on section 40(5B)(a)(i) of the FOIA to refuse to confirm or deny it holds the requested information as to do so would contravene data protection legislation. Confirmation or denial would release the personal data of one of the two individuals above. The Commissioner does not require the GMC to take any remedial steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0150 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View GMC
20 Feb 2020Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information regarding the construction of a dropped curb access. The Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities, Arun District Council has located all the information held in scope of the request. However it breached Regulation 5(2) in failing to respond to the request within 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2)
View Arun District Council
20 Feb 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Natural England about licence applications including renewals relating to killing of ravens and related information. The Commissioner’s decision is that Natural England applied regulation 7(1) correctly, and having responded within 40 working days of receipt of the request for information, it did not breach regulation 5(2) of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR). The Commissioner does not require Natural England to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2); EIR 7(1)
View Natural England
19 Feb 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from the Police and Crime Commissioner for Northumbria (“the PCC”) information about meetings between the former Police and Crime Commissioner, members of parliament, and councillors. The PCC disclosed information in response to the request but the complainant believed that it held more information. The Information Commissioner’s decision is that on the balance of probabilities, the PCC has disclosed to the complainant all the information it holds falling within the scope of his request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
19 Feb 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested a number of policies she believes should be in place. The Hill Primary School initially denied holding some of the information but subsequently decided to refuse the requests as vexatious. The Commissioner’s decision is that the requests were vexatious and thus the School was not obliged to respond to them. However, she also finds that the School failed to advise the complainant, within 20 working days, that the requests were vexatious and thus breached section 17 of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require further steps to be taken. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0127 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14; FOI 17
View HARTWELL PRIMARY SCHOOL
18 Feb 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about a publication scheme. The Commissioner’s decision is that Harrogate Healthcare Facilities Management Ltd failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires HHFM to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: issue a substantive response, under the FOIA, to the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
18 Feb 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant submitted a request to the Ministry of Defence (MOD) seeking information about the monitoring of the health and welfare of crew on nuclear submarines. After a significant delay, the MOD responded to the request and provided some information falling within the scope of the request but sought to withhold further information on the basis of regulations 12(5)(a) (defence and national security) and 12(3) (personal data) of the EIR. The complainant has argued that the information provided to her by the MOD does not fulfil her request. The Commissioner has concluded that the information provided by the MOD to the complainant does fulfil her request and that on the balance of probabilities the MOD does not hold any further information falling within the scope of the request. The Commissioner has also concluded that the MOD is entitled to withhold some of the information in scope on the basis of regulations 12(5)(a) and 12(3) of the EIR. However, the Commissioner has also concl
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(3); EIR 12(5)(a); EIR 5
View Ministry of Defence
18 Feb 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the training provided to Council staff regarding Autism Training. The Commissioner’s decision is that Kent County Council (“the County Council”) failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached Section 10 of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Kent County Council
18 Feb 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The applicant has requested information relating to communications between a number of MPs and HS2 Ltd. The Commissioner’s decision is that HS2 Ltd has correctly applied section 40(2) to part of the withheld information. She further finds that HS2 Ltd has also correctly applied to section 41 to part of the withheld information. However, the Commissioner has concluded that HS2 Ltd incorrectly cited section 41 with regard to other parts of the withheld information. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation. Provide the applicant with the correspondence detailed in the confidential annex subject to further redactions under section 40(2).The public authority must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt
Exemptions cited: FOI 40(1)
View High Speed Two (HS2) Limited
18 Feb 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information in relation to reporting on the Organisation for Prohibition of Chemical Weapons report. The BBC explained the information was covered by the derogation relating to information held for the purposes of journalism, art or literature and hence was excluded from the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that this information was held by the BBC for the purposes of journalism, art or literature and so was not covered by the FOIA. She requires no remedial steps to be taken in this case.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View BBC
18 Feb 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information about the locations of flow rates relating to the Whitburn Steel pumping station. Northumbrian Water Limited refused to disclose the information under regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR (manifestly unreasonable request) and considered the public interest favoured maintaining the exception. The Commissioner’s decision is that Northumbrian Water Limited could rely on regulation 12(4)(b) to refuse to disclose the requested information and that the public interest favoured maintaining the exception. The Commissioner does not require Northumbrian Water Limited to take any remedial steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0112 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b)
View Northumbrian Water
18 Feb 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information in relation to an Options Report for a Motorway Study as well as modelled traffic volumes, presentations and terms of references. Highways England provided some information but withheld the Options Reports and modelled traffic data in the Reports under regulation 12(4)(d). The Commissioner’s decision is that the information does not engage the regulation 12(4)(d) exception and the Reports should be disclosed. The Commissioner requires the public authority to disclose the Options Reports previously withheld under regulation 12(4)(d). Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0121 appeal withdrawn.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(d)
View National Highways
18 Feb 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant submitted a request to the Ministry of Defence (MOD) seeking information about the monitoring of the health and welfare of crew on nuclear submarines. The MOD confirmed that it held information falling within the scope of the request but explained that it considered this information to be exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 26 (defence) of FOIA. After some delay, the MOD provided the complainant with information falling within the scope of her request albeit that it redacted some information on the basis of section 40(2) (personal data) of FOIA. At the internal review stage the MOD clarified the nature of the information it held falling within the scope of the request and explained that some of the requested information should have been considered under the EIR and furthermore some of this information was exempt from disclosure on the basis of regulation 12(5)(a) (defence and national security) of the EIR and that the public interest favoured maintaining this
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(a); EIR 5; FOI 40
View Ministry of Defence
18 Feb 2020Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested copies of correspondence relating to a prosecution. Devon County Council provided some information under data protection legislation and withheld two documents which it said would adversely affect the course of justice if disclosed. It thus relied on Regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR to withhold the information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has applied the exception correctly to withhold information. She also considers that the Council has identified all the information it holds, within the scope of the request, that would fall within the EIR. However, it failed to disclose all the information not covered by exceptions and failed to provide the complainant with a refusal notice stating all the exceptions on which it wished to rely, within 20 working days and thus breached Regulations 5(2) and 14(2) of the FOIA respectively. The Commissioner does not require further steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b); EIR 14(2)(1); EIR 5(2)
View Devon County Council
18 Feb 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information contained in email correspondence to and from named councillors and officers of Slough Borough Council about two named council-owned properties. Slough Borough Council refused the request relying on the section 14(1) FOIA (vexatious or repeated requests) and section 12(1) (cost of compliance) FOIA exemptions. The Commissioner decided that the requests were a manifestly unjustified, inappropriate and improper use of a formal procedure and so were vexatious. The Commissioner does not require Slough Borough Council to take any steps to comply with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Slough Borough Council
18 Feb 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) seeking information about audits and evaluations into projects carried about in Iraq by the company Aktis. The FCO initially withheld all of the information in the scope of the request before disclosing some of this information to the complainant in two stages. The FCO sought to withhold the remaining information on the basis of the following sections of FOIA: 27(1)(a) (international relations), 38(1)(a) and (b) (health and safety), 40(2) (personal data) and 43(2) (commercial interests). The Commissioner has concluded that the FCO is entitled to rely on sections 27(1)(a), 38(1)(a) and (b) and 40(2) and for qualified exemptions the balance of the public interest test favours maintaining the exemptions. However, the Commissioner has also concluded that the FCO is not entitled to rely on section 43(2) to withhold information. Furthermore, she has concluded that the FCO breached section 10(1) of FOIA by failin
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 27; FOI 38; FOI 40; FOI 43
18 Feb 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested any written representations from the BBC to Facebook objecting to disclosure of confidential user information to Cambridge Analytica. The BBC explained the information was covered by the derogation and excluded from FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that this information was held by the BBC for the purposes of ‘journalism, art or literature’ and did not fall inside FOIA. She therefore upholds the BBC’s position and requires no remedial steps to be taken in this case.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View BBC
17 Feb 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about the gender of applicants to be a ‘presenter’. The BBC provided some information but said that it is not obliged to comply with the remainder of the request under section 12(1) of the FOIA, as it would exceed the appropriate cost and time limit to do so. The Commissioner’s decision is that the BBC is not obliged to comply with the remainder of the request under section 12(1) and is satisfied that the BBC met its obligation under section 16 to offer advice and assistance. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View BBC
17 Feb 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from City of London Police about crimes reported via their online portal. City of London Police has failed to respond to this request. The Commissioner requires City of London Police to provide the complainant with a response to this request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA. City of London Police must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
17 Feb 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to guidance on uniforms and workwear. The Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) says it is not obliged to comply with the request under section 12(1) of the FOIA, as it would exceed the appropriate cost and time limit to do so. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DHSC is not obliged to comply with the request under section 12(1). However, she is not satisfied that DHSC met its obligation under section 16 to offer advice and assistance. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Department of Health and Social Care
17 Feb 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested copies of correspondence held by Aylesbury Vale District Council (the Council) concerning a particular property and planning matter. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached Regulation 5(2) of the Environmental Information Regulations (“the EIR”).
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
17 Feb 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the London Borough of Merton (the London Borough) concerning the Bishopsford Bridge. The Commissioner’s decision is that the London Borough failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10 of the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Merton Council
17 Feb 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about an ICT project. Thanet District Council acknowledged the request but had failed to issue a response at the date of this notice. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council failed to respond to the request within 20 working days and has therefore breached section 10 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation: issue a substantive response, under the FOIA, to the request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Thanet District Council
14 Feb 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) seeking a copy of a particular letter dating from 1997 between the British High Commissioner in Wellington and the Cook Islands Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs. The FCO explained that it could not locate the requested letter. The complainant argued that it was likely that the document in question would still be held by the FCO. The Commissioner is satisfied that on the balance of probabilities the FCO does not hold the requested letter. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0113 appeal dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
14 Feb 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from the University of Bath (the University) regarding communications between the University and Bath Rugby Club about Bath Rugby’s temporary stadium plans. The University refused the request under section 43(2) (commercial interests) of the FOIA.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the University correctly applied section 43(2) of the FOIA. Therefore, the Commissioner does not require the University to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43(2)
12 Feb 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from London North West University Healthcare NHS Trust (“the Trust”) relating to issues arising from meetings about Cancer Services. The Trust provided some information to the complainant, but stated that the remainder of the requested information was not held. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust does not hold the remainder of the requested information. However, it failed to comply with the requirements of section 10(1) of the FOIA since, as detailed in this notice, it did not provide a response to the complainant within 20 working days of receiving his requests of 28 July 2018 and 4 January 2019, respectively. The Commissioner does not require the Trust to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10
View London North West University Healthcare NHS Trust
12 Feb 2020Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from Guildford Borough Council information in relation to the Council’s planning department and planning enforcement team. The Council disclosed the organisational charts but refused to provide the names of the position holders, citing section 40(2) of the FOIA (third party personal data) to do so.
The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied section 40(2) to withhold the information. The Commissioner has also decided that the Council has breached section 10 of the FOIA for failing to respond to the complainant’s request within the required twenty working day compliance period.
The Commissioner does not require any further steps as a result of this decision notice. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2020/0098 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10; FOI 40(2)
View Guildford Borough Council
12 Feb 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a copy of the minutes of Ministerial committee meetings on Animal Rights Activists from 2003. The public authority withheld the minutes held relying on the exemptions at sections 35(1)(a) and (b) FOIA. The Commissioner concluded that the public authority was entitled to rely on the exemption at section 35(1)(b).
Exemptions cited: FOI 35
View Home Office
12 Feb 2020Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about a local building development. Tunbridge Wells Borough Council (‘TWBC’) disclosed some information, but said that it was not required to comply with the request on the grounds that it was manifestly unreasonable within the meaning of regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that TWBC was entitled to refuse the request under regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR. She also decided that the level of advice and assistance provided by TWBC complied with the requirements of regulation 9(1) of the EIR. However, she found that because TWBC failed to specify to the complainant the EIR exception under which it was refusing the request, or to explain to him its consideration of the public interest, TWBC breached regulations 14(3)(a) and (b) of the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(b); EIR 14(3)(a); EIR 14(3)(b); EIR 9(1)
View Tunbridge Wells Borough Council
12 Feb 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a copy of the information held for the last six month period of the file series MISC 13 Cabinet Committee on Animal Rights Activists. The public authority withheld the information relying on the exemptions at sections 35(1)(a), (b) and 31(1)(a), (b), (g) FOIA. The Commissioner concluded that the public authority was entitled to rely on the exemption at section 35(1)(b).
Exemptions cited: FOI 35
View Cabinet Office
11 Feb 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested copies of information about energy charges provided to new residents of specific properties. The London Borough of Waltham Forest provided all the information it held within the scope of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that London Borough complied with its duty under section 1(1) of the FOIA within 20 working days. It also complied with its section 11 duty to communicate the information it held in the format the complainant had requested. The Commissioner therefore finds that the London Borough did not breach either aspect of the FOIA in responding to the request. However she has made some more general comments in the “Other Matters” section of this notice. As no breach of the Act has occurred, the Commissioner does not require any remedial steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 11
View Waltham Forest Council
11 Feb 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Southend-on-Sea Borough Council about a planning development. Southend-on-Sea Borough Council has failed to respond to this request. The Commissioner requires Southend-on-Sea Borough Council to provide the complainant with a response to this request in accordance with its obligations under the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View Southend-on-Sea City Council
11 Feb 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information about objections received about a particular planning application. Torfaen County Borough Council (‘the Council’) provided some information but withheld details of the objector under regulation 13 of the EIR. The Commissioner finds that the Council has correctly applied regulation 13 to the withheld information. She does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: EIR 13
View Torfaen County Borough Council
11 Feb 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information from Sussex Police about meetings. Sussex Police has failed to respond to this request. The Commissioner requires Sussex Police to provide the complainant with a response to this request in accordance with its obligations under FOIA. Sussex Police must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Sussex Police
11 Feb 2020Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information from Steyning Parish Council about a Neighbourhood Plan and Local Green Space designations. Steyning Parish Council has failed to respond to this request. The Commissioner requires Steyning Parish Council to provide the complainant with a response to this request in accordance with its obligations under the EIR. Steyning Parish Council must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
11 Feb 2020Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested a highways pricing structure. Central Bedfordshire Council disclosed some information and withheld other information under the exception for commercial confidentiality – regulation 12(5)(e). The Commissioner’s decision is that Central Bedfordshire Council has correctly applied regulation 12(5)(e) to withhold the information and that the public interest favours maintaining the exception. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(e)
View Central Bedfordshire Council