Freedom of Information Act 2000
Information Request FOI/2010/817 and 819
Response
Mr Hodder’s original (amalgamated) requests under the above references related to
any documents/emails relating to the Glastonbury Festival 2009
the 2010-16 licence application
any supporting documents produced by the Festival
any e-mails or documents produced by the Council in relation to the licence
application
This application was refused with reference to partial exemptions derived from
Sections 12, 31, 41, 42 and 43 of the FOI Act 2000. My analysis of these reference
points is as follows:
Section 12 – enables refusal where the cost of compliance would exceed the
appropriate limit of £450.00. I am satisfied that this ground of refusal is well
founded
Section 31 – it is alleged that disclosure would be likely to prejudice the
prevention of crime, with reference to the event management plan, operating
schedule, multi agency meeting minutes and other documents. It is agreed
that disclosure of this information could prejudice the ability of the festival
organisers to maintain safety and security on the festival site, and that
therefore this ground of refusal is well founded
Section 41 – it is alleged that disclosure would represent a breach of
confidence actionable by the persons who provided the information. It is clear
that the information in question was initially provided on a confidential basis,
and that any disclosure would be actionable by those who provided it.
Therefore I am satisfied that this ground of refusal is well founded
Section 42 – it is alleged that the information is subject to legal or professional
privilege. This exemption is only applied to certain parts of the information
requested. While I have not been able to assess the totality of the
documentation requested, I regard it as likely that the information will include
documentation within this category, and therefore this ground of refusal is well
founded insofar as these specific documents are concerned, and insofar as
they relate to legal communication between a legal adviser and his/her client.
Section 43 – it is alleged that the information requested is likely to prejudice
the commercial interests of a person, with reference to the event management
plan, operating schedule and other documents. It is agreed that disclosure of
this information could prejudice the interests of the festival organisers within
the wider context of Section 43(2), and that therefore this ground of refusal is
well founded
FOI/2010/817 and 819 Response
On this basis, I have reviewed the decision made in FOI/2009/817/819 and would
uphold that decision.
I would draw your attention to the copyright statement on the reverse of this Response.
Fiona Lyons
Data Protection Officer
Date: 10 March 2010
Copyright and the Re-use of Public Sector Information Regulations
Most of the information that we provide in response to Freedom of Information Act
2000 requests will be subject to copyright protection. In most cases the copyright will
be owned by Mendip District Council. The copyright in other information may be
owned by another person or organisation, as indicated in the information itself.
You are free to use any information supplied for your own use, including for non-
commercial research purposes. The information may also be used for the purposes
of news reporting. However, any other type of re-use, for example, by publishing the
information or issuing copies to the public will require the permission of the copyright
owner.
For information where the copyright is owned by Mendip District Council please
submit a request in writing stating:-
• Name and address of applicant requiring permission for re-use of the
information
• Full details of the document/information required for re-use sufficient for the
Council to identify it
• The purpose for which the document/information is to be re-used
For information where the copyright is owned by another person or organisation, you
must apply to the copyright owner to obtain their permission.’
FOI/2010/817 and 819 Response
