The Information Commissioner Decisions re. Ealing Council
Two recent ICO Decisions re. Ealing Council referred to:A request for information about two areas of land re. Ealing Council's pre-application advice given to developers in 2019 was REFUSED by the Council. The first area of land was to the north of West Ealing Station, which led to the submission of planning application ref: 202231FUL on 11th June 2020. The applicants being Southern Grove and Thames Valley Housing. The second area was to the south east of the station on land at Hastings Road. This development was being proposed by the A2 Dominion (formerly Acton Housing Association Ltd). A planning application (ref 192864FUL) was submitted on 27th June 2019 (but was not formally validated by the public authority - the submission being considered premature in relation to ongoing discussions).The Council initially cited EIR Regulation 12(5)(f) (voluntary supply) as the reason for its refusal to provide the requsted information. Subsequently, the Council also gave additional reasons for its refusal citing: Regulation 12(4)(e) (internal communications) and also Regulation 12(4)(d) (unfinished material).The Complainant reported the matter to The Information Commissioner.The Information Commissioner's conclusion was that:"The public authority has not persuaded the Commissioner that any of its cited exceptions are engaged, thus she directs that the withheld information be communicated to the complainant. However, it is not to disclose the names and contact details of all persons therein, as this information is outside the scope of the complainant’s request."ICO Decision Ref: Reference: IC-51437-C5Z2Dated: 27th October 2020..........................In the case relating to development at 15A Tring Avenue near Ealing Common, the Complainant had requested Ealing Council to provide a number of different documents. On 9th October 2017, the Complainant wrote to the Council and requested information in the following terms:1. All internal procedure documents detailing how the planning department makes decisions under their delegated powers, in particular regarding residential properties.2. All terms of reference of internal planning department decision making bodies and/or forums.3. All authorities of planning department staff under any delegated powers.4. All documents (including but not limited to emails, instant messages, telephone call notes (and recordings thereof) and manuscript notes) relating to: 1. The original grant of planning permission (redacted); and 2. The variation of condition 5 of that permission’.The Council withheld the e-mails requested citing: Regulation 13 (third party personal data)However, following the complaint to the The Information Commissioner, the ICO Decision stated:"2. …The Council incorrectly applied the exception to the sender/recipient details of emails sent to and received by the applicant in the planning matter related to the complainant’s request. The Commissioner therefore requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.PROVIDE THE COMPLAINANT WITH THE SENDER/RECIPIENT DETAILS OF EMAILS SENT TO AND RECEIVED BY THE APPLICANT.3. The Council 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 of court. 4. The Commissioner has also found that in handling the complainant’s request, the Council breached regulation 5(1) and 5(2) of the EIR by failing to make environmental information available. The Council also unreasonably and excessively delayed in providing the information to the complainant. Additionally, the Council breached regulation 11(4) and 11(5) by failing to conduct an internal review within 40 working days."
Victor Mishiku ● 1126d3 Comments ● 1126d