FER0187769: Difference between revisions
From FOIwiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Alex skene (talk | contribs) m (Text replace - "DNDecision6" to "DNDecision") |
Alex skene (talk | contribs) m (Text replace - "DNDecision5" to "DNDecision") |
||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
|dnd_finding=Upheld | |dnd_finding=Upheld | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{ | {{DNDecision | ||
|dnd_section=EIR 12(5)(f) | |dnd_section=EIR 12(5)(f) | ||
|dnd_finding=Upheld | |dnd_finding=Upheld | ||
Revision as of 22:47, 15 May 2010
Decision Summary
- Case Ref: FER0187769
- Date: 24 September 2009
- Public Authority: Brighton and Hove City Council
- Summary: The complainant requested a copy of a memorandum sent to the City Planner from members of the planning department expressing concern about pressure put on planning staff in relation to the King Alfred development at Brighton & Hove. The complainant also asked for a copy of the City Planner’s response. The council withheld the information via regulations 12(4)(e) and 13(1) of the EIR. The complainant appealed and in addition requested a copy of any other documents relating to what the council did in response to the memorandum. On review the council maintained that the exceptions at 12(4)(e) and 12(5)(f) applied to both requests. During the Commissioner’s investigation the council declared that exceptions at 12(5)(b) and12(5)(f) also applied to the first request. The Commissioner found that the council had incorrectly applied the exceptions and 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]
Template:DNDecision1 Template:DNDecision2 Template:DNDecision3 Template:DNDecision4
- Section of Act / Finding: EIR 12(5)(f) - Complaint Upheld - Find other matching decisions
- Section of Act / Finding: EIR 13(2)(a)(i) - Complaint Partly Upheld - Find other matching decisions
- Section of Act / Finding: EIR 14(3)(a) - Complaint Upheld - Find other matching decisions
