BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
Information Commissioner's Office |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Information Commissioner's Office >> Rossendale Borough Council (Local government (Borough council)) [2017] UKICO FER0690148 (20 November 2017) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKICO/2017/FER0690148.html Cite as: [2017] UKICO FER690148, [2017] UKICO FER0690148 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
20 November 2017, Local government (Borough council)
The complainants requested information about particular funding for a Heritage Arcade scheme from Rossendale Borough Council (the ‘Council’), who provided some of the requested information with redactions, but withheld the remainder. The Council cited section 21 (information accessible by other means), section 40(2) (personal information), section 41 (information provided in confidence), section 42 (legal professional privilege) and section 43 (commercial interests). During the Commissioner’s investigation, the Council revisited its handling of the request and also considered whether the remaining information constitutes environmental information. It concluded that it did, and advised that it wished to rely on regulations 12(4)(b) (manifestly unreasonable) and 12(5)(b) (course of justice) in respect of the remaining information. The Commissioner finds that the information constitutes environmental information and so should have been handled by the Council under the EIR from the outset. She finds that the Council was entitled to rely on regulations 12(4)(b) and12(5)(b) in respect of this information. By failing to respond to the request within the statutory 20 working days’ time frame, the Council breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR. It also breached regulation 14(2) of the EIR as it did not issue a refusal notice within 20 working days. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps as a result of this notice.
EIR 12(4)(b): Not upheld EIR 12(5)(b): Not upheld EIR 5(2): Upheld EIR 14(2): Upheld
