Tribunal finds council erred in handling FOIA request

Background and Context

The First-tier Tribunal, General Regulatory Chamber (Information Rights), delivered a decision on 17 March 2025, allowing an appeal by John Shipp against the Information Commissioner's decision. The case revolved around a Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) request concerning the discharge of a planning condition by Huntingdonshire District Council.

The Initial Request

John Shipp requested details from the Council on how and when Condition 27 of Planning Permission 1401659OUT was discharged. The Council directed him to their online planning portal, asserting that all relevant information was available there. However, Shipp contested this, believing additional information existed.

The Commissioner's Decision

The Information Commissioner initially sided with the Council, concluding that, on the balance of probabilities, no further information was held. The Commissioner noted procedural delays in the Council's internal review but did not mandate further action.

The Tribunal's Findings

The Tribunal found that the Council likely held more information than disclosed. It criticised the Commissioner's acceptance of the Council's assertions without adequate scrutiny. The Tribunal directed the Council to re-evaluate its records and provide a fresh response to Shipp's request.

Legal Framework

The Tribunal's decision hinged on the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR), which require public authorities to make environmental information available upon request. The Tribunal applied established case law to assess whether the Council had fulfilled its obligations under these regulations.

Grounds of Appeal

Shipp argued that the Council failed to disclose all relevant information, particularly regarding the implementation process of Condition 27. He highlighted discrepancies in the Council's responses and the improbability of no records existing for such a significant planning condition.

Tribunal's Conclusion

The Tribunal concluded that the Council had not conducted a sufficiently rigorous search for information. It found the Commissioner's decision legally flawed and directed the Council to undertake a comprehensive review of its records.

Implications

This case underscores the importance of thorough record-keeping and transparency in public authorities' responses to information requests. It also highlights the Tribunal's role in ensuring compliance with information access laws.

Learn More

For more information on data protection and compliance, see BeCivil's guide to English Data Protection Law.