|
|
| (9 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| {{DNSummaryBox | | {{DNSummaryBox |
| |dn_ref=FER015931902/02/2010Planning ServiceThe complainant made a verbal request to inspect information held by the Planning Service on Planning Application file T199/0394. The Planning Service permitted the complainant to view the file but withheld some of the information contained within it on the basis that the exception in Regulation 12(5)(b) applied. The Commissioner has decided that the Planning Service failed to explain or demonstrate why the exception in Regulation 12(5)(b) applied to the withheld information in this case. It therefore breached Regulations 5(1) and (2) in failing to make that information available to the complainant within twenty working days of the request. He has therefore ordered the Planning Service to make the withheld information available for inspection by the complainant.http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2010/fer_0159319.pdfEIR 5(1)UpheldEIR 5(2)UpheldEIR 12(5)(b)UpheldFER016840925/01/2010Department of EnergyX&XClimate ChangeThe complainant requested information regarding the cost of nuclear plants and the management of radioactive waste and decommissioning. The public authority initially applied a number of exemptions under the Freedom of Information Act ("the Act") to the requested information. However, it also recognised that in the event that some of the information was environmental, a number of exceptions under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 ("the EIR") would apply. During the course of the Commissioner's investigation the public authority argued that some of the information it had initially considered to be relevant in fact fell outside of the scope of the request. The Commissioner has concluded that some of the information identified by the public authority did fall outside of the scope of the request but that other material fell within it. He has found that all of the information within the scope of the request should have been considered under the EIR and that some of it constitutes information on or relating to emissions. The Commissioner has concluded that the exceptions in Regulations 12(5)(e) to (g) cannot be relied upon as a basis for withholding the information by virtue of Regulation 12(9). In relation to the independent consultant reports, the Commissioner has found that they were incorrectly withheld on the basis of 12(4)(e) as they do not constitute internal communications. The Commissioner has concluded that the remainder of the withheld information did constitute internal communications and therefore the exception in Regulation 12(4)(e) was engaged. However, he has found that the public interest in maintaining this exception at the time of the request did not outweigh the public interest in disclosure. The Commissioner also finds that disclosure of personal data identified by the public authority would not have breached the data protection principles and therefore Regulation 13(1) did not apply. The Commissioner has ordered the public authority to disclose the information within the scope of the request that has not already been provided to the complainant within 35 days from the date of this Notice. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/fer_0168409.pdfEIR 5(1)UpheldEIR 5(2)UpheldEIR 12(4)(e)UpheldEIR 12(9)UpheldEIR 14(3)UpheldFER0174998 | | |dn_ref=FER0174998 |
| |dn_date=FER015931902/02/2010Planning ServiceThe complainant made a verbal request to inspect information held by the Planning Service on Planning Application file T199/0394. The Planning Service permitted the complainant to view the file but withheld some of the information contained within it on the basis that the exception in Regulation 12(5)(b) applied. The Commissioner has decided that the Planning Service failed to explain or demonstrate why the exception in Regulation 12(5)(b) applied to the withheld information in this case. It therefore breached Regulations 5(1) and (2) in failing to make that information available to the complainant within twenty working days of the request. He has therefore ordered the Planning Service to make the withheld information available for inspection by the complainant.http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2010/fer_0159319.pdfEIR 5(1)UpheldEIR 5(2)UpheldEIR 12(5)(b)UpheldFER016840925/01/2010Department of EnergyX&XClimate ChangeThe complainant requested information regarding the cost of nuclear plants and the management of radioactive waste and decommissioning. The public authority initially applied a number of exemptions under the Freedom of Information Act ("the Act") to the requested information. However, it also recognised that in the event that some of the information was environmental, a number of exceptions under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 ("the EIR") would apply. During the course of the Commissioner's investigation the public authority argued that some of the information it had initially considered to be relevant in fact fell outside of the scope of the request. The Commissioner has concluded that some of the information identified by the public authority did fall outside of the scope of the request but that other material fell within it. He has found that all of the information within the scope of the request should have been considered under the EIR and that some of it constitutes information on or relating to emissions. The Commissioner has concluded that the exceptions in Regulations 12(5)(e) to (g) cannot be relied upon as a basis for withholding the information by virtue of Regulation 12(9). In relation to the independent consultant reports, the Commissioner has found that they were incorrectly withheld on the basis of 12(4)(e) as they do not constitute internal communications. The Commissioner has concluded that the remainder of the withheld information did constitute internal communications and therefore the exception in Regulation 12(4)(e) was engaged. However, he has found that the public interest in maintaining this exception at the time of the request did not outweigh the public interest in disclosure. The Commissioner also finds that disclosure of personal data identified by the public authority would not have breached the data protection principles and therefore Regulation 13(1) did not apply. The Commissioner has ordered the public authority to disclose the information within the scope of the request that has not already been provided to the complainant within 35 days from the date of this Notice. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/fer_0168409.pdfEIR 5(1)UpheldEIR 5(2)UpheldEIR 12(4)(e)UpheldEIR 12(9)UpheldEIR 14(3)UpheldFER017499829/03/2010 | | |dn_date=29 March 2010 |
| |dn_pa=FER015931902/02/2010Planning ServiceThe complainant made a verbal request to inspect information held by the Planning Service on Planning Application file T199/0394. The Planning Service permitted the complainant to view the file but withheld some of the information contained within it on the basis that the exception in Regulation 12(5)(b) applied. The Commissioner has decided that the Planning Service failed to explain or demonstrate why the exception in Regulation 12(5)(b) applied to the withheld information in this case. It therefore breached Regulations 5(1) and (2) in failing to make that information available to the complainant within twenty working days of the request. He has therefore ordered the Planning Service to make the withheld information available for inspection by the complainant.http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2010/fer_0159319.pdfEIR 5(1)UpheldEIR 5(2)UpheldEIR 12(5)(b)UpheldFER016840925/01/2010Department of EnergyX&XClimate ChangeThe complainant requested information regarding the cost of nuclear plants and the management of radioactive waste and decommissioning. The public authority initially applied a number of exemptions under the Freedom of Information Act ("the Act") to the requested information. However, it also recognised that in the event that some of the information was environmental, a number of exceptions under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 ("the EIR") would apply. During the course of the Commissioner's investigation the public authority argued that some of the information it had initially considered to be relevant in fact fell outside of the scope of the request. The Commissioner has concluded that some of the information identified by the public authority did fall outside of the scope of the request but that other material fell within it. He has found that all of the information within the scope of the request should have been considered under the EIR and that some of it constitutes information on or relating to emissions. The Commissioner has concluded that the exceptions in Regulations 12(5)(e) to (g) cannot be relied upon as a basis for withholding the information by virtue of Regulation 12(9). In relation to the independent consultant reports, the Commissioner has found that they were incorrectly withheld on the basis of 12(4)(e) as they do not constitute internal communications. The Commissioner has concluded that the remainder of the withheld information did constitute internal communications and therefore the exception in Regulation 12(4)(e) was engaged. However, he has found that the public interest in maintaining this exception at the time of the request did not outweigh the public interest in disclosure. The Commissioner also finds that disclosure of personal data identified by the public authority would not have breached the data protection principles and therefore Regulation 13(1) did not apply. The Commissioner has ordered the public authority to disclose the information within the scope of the request that has not already been provided to the complainant within 35 days from the date of this Notice. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/fer_0168409.pdfEIR 5(1)UpheldEIR 5(2)UpheldEIR 12(4)(e)UpheldEIR 12(9)UpheldEIR 14(3)UpheldFER017499829/03/2010Department of the Environment (NI) | | |dn_pa=Department of the Environment (NI) |
| |dn_summary=FER015931902/02/2010Planning ServiceThe complainant made a verbal request to inspect information held by the Planning Service on Planning Application file T199/0394. The Planning Service permitted the complainant to view the file but withheld some of the information contained within it on the basis that the exception in Regulation 12(5)(b) applied. The Commissioner has decided that the Planning Service failed to explain or demonstrate why the exception in Regulation 12(5)(b) applied to the withheld information in this case. It therefore breached Regulations 5(1) and (2) in failing to make that information available to the complainant within twenty working days of the request. He has therefore ordered the Planning Service to make the withheld information available for inspection by the complainant.http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2010/fer_0159319.pdfEIR 5(1)UpheldEIR 5(2)UpheldEIR 12(5)(b)UpheldFER016840925/01/2010Department of EnergyX&XClimate ChangeThe complainant requested information regarding the cost of nuclear plants and the management of radioactive waste and decommissioning. The public authority initially applied a number of exemptions under the Freedom of Information Act ("the Act") to the requested information. However, it also recognised that in the event that some of the information was environmental, a number of exceptions under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 ("the EIR") would apply. During the course of the Commissioner's investigation the public authority argued that some of the information it had initially considered to be relevant in fact fell outside of the scope of the request. The Commissioner has concluded that some of the information identified by the public authority did fall outside of the scope of the request but that other material fell within it. He has found that all of the information within the scope of the request should have been considered under the EIR and that some of it constitutes information on or relating to emissions. The Commissioner has concluded that the exceptions in Regulations 12(5)(e) to (g) cannot be relied upon as a basis for withholding the information by virtue of Regulation 12(9). In relation to the independent consultant reports, the Commissioner has found that they were incorrectly withheld on the basis of 12(4)(e) as they do not constitute internal communications. The Commissioner has concluded that the remainder of the withheld information did constitute internal communications and therefore the exception in Regulation 12(4)(e) was engaged. However, he has found that the public interest in maintaining this exception at the time of the request did not outweigh the public interest in disclosure. The Commissioner also finds that disclosure of personal data identified by the public authority would not have breached the data protection principles and therefore Regulation 13(1) did not apply. The Commissioner has ordered the public authority to disclose the information within the scope of the request that has not already been provided to the complainant within 35 days from the date of this Notice. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/fer_0168409.pdfEIR 5(1)UpheldEIR 5(2)UpheldEIR 12(4)(e)UpheldEIR 12(9)UpheldEIR 14(3)UpheldFER017499829/03/2010Department of the Environment (NI)The complainant requested information in respect of an application for planning permission for a housing development. The Commissioner is satisfied that the requested information is environmental information which falls to be considered under the EIR. The Commissioner's decision is that the Department correctly applied the exception under regulation 12(4)(e) of the EIR to withhold the requested information. | | |dn_summary=The complainant requested information in respect of an application for planning permission for a housing development. The Commissioner is satisfied that the requested information is environmental information which falls to be considered under the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Department correctly applied the exception under regulation 12(4)(e) of the EIR to withhold the requested information. |
| |dn_url=FER015931902/02/2010Planning ServiceThe complainant made a verbal request to inspect information held by the Planning Service on Planning Application file T199/0394. The Planning Service permitted the complainant to view the file but withheld some of the information contained within it on the basis that the exception in Regulation 12(5)(b) applied. The Commissioner has decided that the Planning Service failed to explain or demonstrate why the exception in Regulation 12(5)(b) applied to the withheld information in this case. It therefore breached Regulations 5(1) and (2) in failing to make that information available to the complainant within twenty working days of the request. He has therefore ordered the Planning Service to make the withheld information available for inspection by the complainant.http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2010/fer_0159319.pdfEIR 5(1)UpheldEIR 5(2)UpheldEIR 12(5)(b)UpheldFER016840925/01/2010Department of EnergyX&XClimate ChangeThe complainant requested information regarding the cost of nuclear plants and the management of radioactive waste and decommissioning. The public authority initially applied a number of exemptions under the Freedom of Information Act ("the Act") to the requested information. However, it also recognised that in the event that some of the information was environmental, a number of exceptions under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 ("the EIR") would apply. During the course of the Commissioner's investigation the public authority argued that some of the information it had initially considered to be relevant in fact fell outside of the scope of the request. The Commissioner has concluded that some of the information identified by the public authority did fall outside of the scope of the request but that other material fell within it. He has found that all of the information within the scope of the request should have been considered under the EIR and that some of it constitutes information on or relating to emissions. The Commissioner has concluded that the exceptions in Regulations 12(5)(e) to (g) cannot be relied upon as a basis for withholding the information by virtue of Regulation 12(9). In relation to the independent consultant reports, the Commissioner has found that they were incorrectly withheld on the basis of 12(4)(e) as they do not constitute internal communications. The Commissioner has concluded that the remainder of the withheld information did constitute internal communications and therefore the exception in Regulation 12(4)(e) was engaged. However, he has found that the public interest in maintaining this exception at the time of the request did not outweigh the public interest in disclosure. The Commissioner also finds that disclosure of personal data identified by the public authority would not have breached the data protection principles and therefore Regulation 13(1) did not apply. The Commissioner has ordered the public authority to disclose the information within the scope of the request that has not already been provided to the complainant within 35 days from the date of this Notice. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/fer_0168409.pdfEIR 5(1)UpheldEIR 5(2)UpheldEIR 12(4)(e)UpheldEIR 12(9)UpheldEIR 14(3)UpheldFER017499829/03/2010Department of the Environment (NI)The complainant requested information in respect of an application for planning permission for a housing development. The Commissioner is satisfied that the requested information is environmental information which falls to be considered under the EIR. The Commissioner's decision is that the Department correctly applied the exception under regulation 12(4)(e) of the EIR to withhold the requested information.http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2010/fer_0174998.pdf | | |dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2010/fer_0174998.pdf |
| }} | | }} |
| {{DNDecision | | {{DNDecision |
| |dnd_section=FER015931902/02/2010Planning ServiceThe complainant made a verbal request to inspect information held by the Planning Service on Planning Application file T199/0394. The Planning Service permitted the complainant to view the file but withheld some of the information contained within it on the basis that the exception in Regulation 12(5)(b) applied. The Commissioner has decided that the Planning Service failed to explain or demonstrate why the exception in Regulation 12(5)(b) applied to the withheld information in this case. It therefore breached Regulations 5(1) and (2) in failing to make that information available to the complainant within twenty working days of the request. He has therefore ordered the Planning Service to make the withheld information available for inspection by the complainant.http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2010/fer_0159319.pdfEIR 5(1)UpheldEIR 5(2)UpheldEIR 12(5)(b)UpheldFER016840925/01/2010Department of EnergyX&XClimate ChangeThe complainant requested information regarding the cost of nuclear plants and the management of radioactive waste and decommissioning. The public authority initially applied a number of exemptions under the Freedom of Information Act ("the Act") to the requested information. However, it also recognised that in the event that some of the information was environmental, a number of exceptions under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 ("the EIR") would apply. During the course of the Commissioner's investigation the public authority argued that some of the information it had initially considered to be relevant in fact fell outside of the scope of the request. The Commissioner has concluded that some of the information identified by the public authority did fall outside of the scope of the request but that other material fell within it. He has found that all of the information within the scope of the request should have been considered under the EIR and that some of it constitutes information on or relating to emissions. The Commissioner has concluded that the exceptions in Regulations 12(5)(e) to (g) cannot be relied upon as a basis for withholding the information by virtue of Regulation 12(9). In relation to the independent consultant reports, the Commissioner has found that they were incorrectly withheld on the basis of 12(4)(e) as they do not constitute internal communications. The Commissioner has concluded that the remainder of the withheld information did constitute internal communications and therefore the exception in Regulation 12(4)(e) was engaged. However, he has found that the public interest in maintaining this exception at the time of the request did not outweigh the public interest in disclosure. The Commissioner also finds that disclosure of personal data identified by the public authority would not have breached the data protection principles and therefore Regulation 13(1) did not apply. The Commissioner has ordered the public authority to disclose the information within the scope of the request that has not already been provided to the complainant within 35 days from the date of this Notice. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/fer_0168409.pdfEIR 5(1)UpheldEIR 5(2)UpheldEIR 12(4)(e)UpheldEIR 12(9)UpheldEIR 14(3)UpheldFER017499829/03/2010Department of the Environment (NI)The complainant requested information in respect of an application for planning permission for a housing development. The Commissioner is satisfied that the requested information is environmental information which falls to be considered under the EIR. The Commissioner's decision is that the Department correctly applied the exception under regulation 12(4)(e) of the EIR to withhold the requested information.http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2010/fer_0174998.pdfEIR 12(4)(e) | | |dnd_section=EIR 12(4)(e) |
| |dnd_finding=FER015931902/02/2010Planning ServiceThe complainant made a verbal request to inspect information held by the Planning Service on Planning Application file T199/0394. The Planning Service permitted the complainant to view the file but withheld some of the information contained within it on the basis that the exception in Regulation 12(5)(b) applied. The Commissioner has decided that the Planning Service failed to explain or demonstrate why the exception in Regulation 12(5)(b) applied to the withheld information in this case. It therefore breached Regulations 5(1) and (2) in failing to make that information available to the complainant within twenty working days of the request. He has therefore ordered the Planning Service to make the withheld information available for inspection by the complainant.http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2010/fer_0159319.pdfEIR 5(1)UpheldEIR 5(2)UpheldEIR 12(5)(b)UpheldFER016840925/01/2010Department of EnergyX&XClimate ChangeThe complainant requested information regarding the cost of nuclear plants and the management of radioactive waste and decommissioning. The public authority initially applied a number of exemptions under the Freedom of Information Act ("the Act") to the requested information. However, it also recognised that in the event that some of the information was environmental, a number of exceptions under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 ("the EIR") would apply. During the course of the Commissioner's investigation the public authority argued that some of the information it had initially considered to be relevant in fact fell outside of the scope of the request. The Commissioner has concluded that some of the information identified by the public authority did fall outside of the scope of the request but that other material fell within it. He has found that all of the information within the scope of the request should have been considered under the EIR and that some of it constitutes information on or relating to emissions. The Commissioner has concluded that the exceptions in Regulations 12(5)(e) to (g) cannot be relied upon as a basis for withholding the information by virtue of Regulation 12(9). In relation to the independent consultant reports, the Commissioner has found that they were incorrectly withheld on the basis of 12(4)(e) as they do not constitute internal communications. The Commissioner has concluded that the remainder of the withheld information did constitute internal communications and therefore the exception in Regulation 12(4)(e) was engaged. However, he has found that the public interest in maintaining this exception at the time of the request did not outweigh the public interest in disclosure. The Commissioner also finds that disclosure of personal data identified by the public authority would not have breached the data protection principles and therefore Regulation 13(1) did not apply. The Commissioner has ordered the public authority to disclose the information within the scope of the request that has not already been provided to the complainant within 35 days from the date of this Notice. This decision notice is currently under appeal to the Information Tribunal.http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/fer_0168409.pdfEIR 5(1)UpheldEIR 5(2)UpheldEIR 12(4)(e)UpheldEIR 12(9)UpheldEIR 14(3)UpheldFER017499829/03/2010Department of the Environment (NI)The complainant requested information in respect of an application for planning permission for a housing development. The Commissioner is satisfied that the requested information is environmental information which falls to be considered under the EIR. The Commissioner's decision is that the Department correctly applied the exception under regulation 12(4)(e) of the EIR to withhold the requested information.http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2010/fer_0174998.pdfEIR 12(4)(e)Not upheld | | |dnd_finding=Not upheld |
| }} | | }} |
| [[Category:DNTest]]
| |
