“You were quite entitled to make any suggestions or protests at the appropriate time you know.” “Appropriate time? ”hooted Arthur. “Appropriate time? The first I knew about it was when the workmen arrived at my home yesterday. I asked him if he’d come to clean the windows and he said no he’d come to demolish the house. He didn’t tell me straight away of course. Oh no. First he wiped a couple of windows and charged me a fiver. Then he told me.” “But Mr Dent the plans have been available in the local planning office for the last nine months.” “Oh yes well as soon as I heard I went straight round to see them, yesterday afternoon. You hadn’t exactly gone out of your way to call attention to them had you? I mean like actually telling anybody or anything.” “But the plans were on display…” “On display I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.” “That’s the display department.” “With a torch?” “Ah, well the lights had probably gone.” “So had the stairs.” “But look you found the notice didn’t you?” “Yes,” said Arthur, “yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of the locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying Beware of the Leopard.”
“As per the emails below, I should have received the information I requested by7 November 2022 . No information, or request for proposed extension due to unforeseen difficulties, has been received. My request is for basic planning information. The planning process is a public one, it should not be a private world of private liaisons between members of the planning department and those seeking planning permissions. My request is therefore a very simple one to administer and so I look forward to receiving the information by return. To avoid doubt my request is because secret actions of the Council have permanently damaged my quality of life to deliver no public good or benefits whatsoever. I have a direct interest in the matter and require the information accordingly. I am not requesting the matter for vague reasons and so, if the information department is busy, I request prioritisation of my request accordingly.”
“I would be most grateful for your Office's kind assistance in respect of Shropshire Council with-holding public information. My life has been permanently damaged by the Council granting planning permission without following the statutory consultation procedure. Neither myself nor any of my neighbours received any notice of a development that now permanently damages our quality of life. There is no public benefit to the scheme - it is just a rich person with a big house adding value to it with extensions. We literally woke up one day to find the work in progress. So I asked for all emails, notes of telephone conversations and any other communications between the Council and the developer / and/or any agents involved. This was acknowledged on11 October 2022 as below. The Council can easily locate the information under it's referencing scheme for Planning Applications 22/00213/FUL and 22/02172/FUL . It has ignored my complaint of17 November 2022 about not providing the information within the prescribed time-scales as below. I attach a letter from my solicitor to the Council by way of background information. The Council is also well out of time to respond to my substantive complaint about the conduct of the Planning Department giving rise to major alarm bells suggesting it lacks any concern for public interest and the rule of law. This makes the FOI request even more important.”
“The Council appear not to have carried out any notification of the adjoining properties in respect of this application, no reason is given for this in the case officer report. It is however noted that no public comments were received.”
“…had our client, or the other neighbours, been notified of the second application he would have had the opportunity to object and inform the Council of the impacts of the permitted development on his private amenity space. As a result of the grant of the applications for this development, our client now has two windows facing his living room and creating significant overlooking. In addition, and due to the lack of conditions controlling construction hours, our client has experienced disruptive noise from the development works, throughout the day. Our client has spoken to the other adjoining neighbours of the development and none of them received any consultation letter, nor were they aware of the application for permission. Our client is particularly sensitive to these impacts as he is autistic. Had the Council notified him of this application they could have taken these considerations into account in determining the application. As it is they have failed to impose any planning conditions limiting the development hours to certain periods during the week. The impacts of this failure on our client have been severe and he has suffered from lack of sleep and stress”
“11. The withheld information in this case, which the Commissioner has viewed, comprises the names and contact details of the various parties to email correspondence about the planning applications. Three photographs, forwarded by the developer and showing the property in question, have also been withheld. 12. The analysis below considers the application of regulation 13(1) of the EIR to withhold personal data. The complainant has specifically asked that the Commissioner consider the disclosure of the Council officers’ identities, and the disclosure of the photographs. The Commissioner has therefore excluded the small amount of personal data that relates to other parties, from the scope of this investigation. ….. 20. As regards the three photographs the Council has withheld, they contain images of the developer’s property, including its name. The address of the property is in the public domain in connection with the planning application, and is known to the complainant. The Commissioner’s established position is that the address of a private property (and consequently, information about it) constitutes the personal data of its owner/occupier. The photographs are, therefore, the personal data of the developer. 27. He finds that the developer would have a similar, reasonable expectation that their personal data, provided for the specific purpose of seeking planning approval from the Council, would not be disclosed to the wider world in response to an EIR request. The Commissioner has conducted internet searches, and he has been unable to locate any images of the property which are similar to the withheld images. Disclosure would therefore be placing new information into the public domain. 45…Finally, he recognises that one application was essentially re-applying for permission that had previously been granted, and which had lapsed. The other was for modifications to existing structures. The Commissioner does not consider that their approval would necessitate the level of deliberation which the complainant envisages.”
“8. The Appellant does not accept that three photographs of an alleged publicly displayed planning notice constitute personal data exempt from release under either or both the Environmental Information Regulations or Freedom of Information Act. 9. Firstly, the photographs must be of a view obtainable by any member of the public at any time. This is because the Council has stated the pictures are of a public notice publicly displayed. 10. Secondly, in the context of the Council relying so heavily on what it states are accessible publicly displayed notices in its new planning consultations regime, now devoid of individual notices provided to residents, the photographs should be released in the public interest. 11. Thirdly, the Appellant has exhausted the Council’s internal complaints procedure and is contemplating a complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman. The Information Commissioner believes that the non-release of this information does not disadvantage the Appellant in that respect. 12. The Commissioner is contended to be mistaken. This is because in Milburn, R (On the Application Of) v The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman[2022] EWHC 1777 (Admin) the Ombudsman was found to have wrongly accepted assertions by a Local Authority that were unsupported by evidence. The Appellant is at risk of a similar situation arising with his own complaint, should he decide to advance it. 13. Fourthly, the Appellant is concerned about the erosion of local democracy caused by the removal of planning notices formerly provided to residents over many decades, with those notices withdrawn at a meeting chaired by a property developer who did not declare her interest. It is therefore again contended that the release of photographs said to provide evidence of an allegedly prominently and publicly displayed planning notice should be released in the public interest.”
“The Aarhus Convention’s twin protections for environmental and human rights, and its focus on involving the public, provide a mechanism for holding governments to account in their efforts to address the multi-dimensional challenges facing our world today..”
“The Commissioner has conducted internet searches, and he has been unable to locate any images of the property which are similar to the withheld images. Disclosure would therefore be placing new information into the public domain. For all parties, disclosing their personal data in response to this request would be unexpected and may cause them distress.”
“…encouraging the constant improvement of the living conditions of its peoples, preserving and strengthening peace and liberty and promoting democracy on the basis of the fundamental rights recognized in the constitution and laws of the Member States and in the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms”
“The processing of personal data should be designed to serve mankind. The right to the protection of personal data is not an absolute right; it must be considered in relation to its function in society and be balanced against other fundamental rights, in accordance with the principle of proportionality. This Regulation respects all fundamental rights and observes the freedoms and principles recognised in the Charter as enshrined in the Treaties, in particular the respect for private and family life, home and communications, the protection of personal data, freedom of thought, conscience and religion, freedom of expression and information, freedom to conduct a business, the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial, and cultural, religious and linguistic diversity.”
“Finally, he recognises that one application was essentially re-applying for permission that had previously been granted, and which had lapsed. The other was for modifications to existing structures. The Commissioner does not consider that their approval would necessitate the level of deliberation which the complainant envisages.”