First-tier Tribunal allows environmental information appeal against Affinity Water's national security claims

The First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) has allowed an appeal against the Information Commissioner's decision in Styles v Information Commissioner & Anor [2025] UKFTT 1138 (GRC), finding that Affinity Water Limited (AWL) was not entitled to withhold abstraction licence numbers under the national security and public safety exemption in regulation 12(5)(a) of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004.

Background to the request

The appellant, compiling an inventory of England's chalk streams, requested a list of boreholes abstracting water from chalk aquifers, including Environment Agency licence numbers and nearest settlements. AWL refused the request, citing regulation 12(5)(a) EIR. The Information Commissioner upheld this refusal, finding that disclosure would adversely affect national security and public safety, with the public interest favouring non-disclosure.

AWL had provided alternative information including a list with four-digit grid references (identifying locations to 1km²) and a map showing approximate borehole locations, arguing this satisfied its duty to provide advice and assistance under regulation 9(1) EIR whilst maintaining security.

The tribunal's analysis

The tribunal emphasised the presumption in favour of disclosure under regulation 12(2) EIR and the requirement that grounds for refusal be interpreted restrictively. Drawing on Vesco v Information Commissioner [2019] UKUT 247 (TCC) and EU case law, the panel examined whether disclosure would more probably than not cause the alleged harm.

Crucially, the tribunal distinguished this case from Boswarva v Information Commissioner (EA/2020/0332 & 0333), where detailed reservoir information was properly withheld. Here, abstraction licence numbers would not themselves reveal precise borehole locations. Rather, they would enable subsequent requests to the Environment Agency for full abstraction licences.

The tribunal found no causative link between disclosing licence numbers and adverse effects on national security or public safety. The potential risks would only arise from subsequent steps—specifically, requests made to the Environment Agency for the actual licences. At that stage, the EA, as a public authority bound by EIR, would bear responsibility for determining whether regulation 12(5)(a) applied to those requests.

Implications for public authorities

The judgement addresses concerns about AWL's duties under the Security and Emergency Measures Direction 2022, which requires water companies to identify and mitigate risks to water supply infrastructure. Whilst recognising these obligations, the tribunal noted that AWL could notify the EA when abstraction licence numbers are disclosed, allowing the EA to consider national security concerns if further requests materialise.

The panel rejected the notion that AWL could refuse information merely to prevent subsequent requests to another public authority. The EA, as a national agency, would be well-placed to consider national security issues and could rely on the same EIR exemptions available to AWL.

The tribunal expressly declined to be influenced by evidence that eight other water companies had disclosed similar information, acknowledging that each authority must conduct its own risk assessment based on particular circumstances, including geological factors affecting their supply areas.

The substituted decision notice requires AWL to provide the requested information within 35 days, with a direction that AWL supply the EA with a copy of the decision. This approach balances transparency requirements under EIR with ongoing security considerations at the point where more detailed information might be sought.