FER0178071: Difference between revisions

From FOIwiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
(CSV import)
 
(XML import)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{DNSummaryBox
{{DNSummaryBox
|dn_ref=FER0178071
|dn_ref=FER0178071
|dn_date=24/09/2009
|dn_date=24/09/2009
|dn_pa=Brighton and Hove City Council
|dn_pa=Brighton and Hove City Council
|dn_summary=The complainant requested copies of correspondence between council officers related to the drawing up of the report concerning the King Alfred development at Brighton & Hove. In particular he requested correspondence which provided advice/opinions on the council�s recommendation to approve and its compliance with planning guidelines. The council withheld the information via the exceptions at regulations 12(4)(b), 12(4)(e), 12(5)(b), 12(5)(f) and 13(1) of the EIR. The Commissioner found the council to have incorrectly applied the exceptions. He also found that it had failed to comply with regulations 5(1), 5(2) and 14(3)(a) of the EIR. The Commissioner ordered disclosure of the information.
|dn_summary= that it had failed to comply with regulations 5(1), 5(2) and 14(3)(a) of the EIR. The Commissioner ordered disclosure of the information.
|dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2009/fer_0178071.pdf
|dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2009/fer_0178071.pdf
}}
}}
{{DNDecision
{{DNDecision
|1=EIR 14(3)(a)
|dnd_section=EIR 5(1)
|2=Upheld
|dnd_finding=Upheld
}}
{{DNDecision
|dnd_section=EIR 5(2)
|dnd_finding=Upheld
}}
{{DNDecision
|dnd_section=EIR 12(4)(b)
|dnd_finding=Upheld
}}
{{DNDecision
|dnd_section=EIR 12(4)(e)
|dnd_finding=Upheld
}}
{{DNDecision
|dnd_section=EIR 12(5)(b)
|dnd_finding=Upheld
}}
{{DNDecision
|dnd_section=EIR 12(5)(f)
|dnd_finding=Upheld
}}
{{DNDecision
|dnd_section=EIR 13(2)(a)(i)
|dnd_finding=Partly Upheld
}}
{{DNDecision
|dnd_section=EIR 14(3)(a)
|dnd_finding=Upheld
}}
}}

Revision as of 21:17, 3 May 2010


Decision Summary

  • Case Ref: FER0178071
  • Date: 24/09/2009
  • Public Authority: Brighton and Hove City Council
  • Summary: that it had failed to comply with regulations 5(1), 5(2) and 14(3)(a) of the EIR. The Commissioner ordered disclosure of the information.
  • View PDF of Decision Notice: [1]