Dear Ms Mathias,
Thank you for your email below and the opportunity to respond to this complaint again.
I realise now that I misunderstood what Mr Jones was asking me to review in his email of the 31 August 2010.
I have now reconsidered his request to review our interpretation and can advise that regardless of the further clarification provided by Mr Jones on 26th and 31st August, there would have been only 3 e-mails that may have been disclosed, that weren't disclosed to him on 26th August 2010.
Unfortunately his mention of the Tesco Retail Impact Report was overlooked, and I can confirm that the Tesco Retail Impact Report was disclosed to Cllr Simon Rayner on 19th July 2010. However, looking at this section of the request made by Mr Jones, it would not have been interpreted as a request for a copy of the report itself.
I can confirm that having looked at this request again, that it should have been considered under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR), and having considered the request again under these regulations, it is clear that at the time of the initial request that the same personal data would have been withheld, this time under Section 12(3) of the EIR. Although some of what was requested would have been considered "Internal Communications" and therefore could have been withheld under Section 12(4)(e) of the EIR, the Public Interest Test would have been considered, at that time, in favour of disclosure, and would have been disclosed.
Having re-considered the scope of the request and reconsidered the request under the EIR, I find that there are 3 emails that had previously been withheld that are now disclosable and are attached.
I would like to add that there may have been further meetings or discussions between the 8 Councillors specified by Mr Jones and between Officers and the 8 Councillors, however they may not have resulted in minutes or notes being taken or they may have taken the form of a conversation, in which it was not considered necessary to take notes.
Mr Jones has already received all of the information, to include correspondence, minutes of meetings and correspondence relating to the Sainsbury's application at Ashton Gate that was held by the Council at the time of his request, except for the 3 e-mails attached.
I apologise on behalf of the Council for the confusion with this request, and by way of an explanation can advise that there were a few requests for very similar information relating to the Ashton Gate application, and the requests became confused.
I realise that Mr Jones made this request via the "what do they know" website, and this request is still showing as awaiting internal review. Would Mr Jones like this response to go to the "what do they know" website, or would he like it to go to another email address? Also, if Mr Jones would like a copy of the Tesco Retail Impact Report could he please advise me, and I will send him a copy.
Yours sincerel
Heléna Ashton
Data Protection Officer
Rm 326 Council House
PO Box 76
Bristol
BS99 7BL
Tel: 0117 9222725
Please note the new e-mail address xxxxxx.xxxxxx@xxxxxxx.xxx.xx
Where legal advice is contained within an e-mail, this advice is given on behalf of Stephen McNamara, Head of Legal Services.
This email and any attachments are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient be advised that you have received this email in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this email is strictly prohibited.
If you have received this email in error please contact the sender immediately.
Senders and recipients of email should be aware that, under current legislation, the contents may be monitored and will be retained. The contents of the email may have to be disclosed in response to a request.
y
>>> <xxxxxxxx@xxx.xxx.xxx.xx> 04/02/11 16:22 >>>
Freedom of Information Act 2000
Environmental Information Regulations 2004
Mr G Jones
4 February 2011
Dear Ms Ashton,
I am writing in response to your email sent to John Sweeney on 5 January 2011. The Information Commissioner has a duty to investigate this complaint and the case has been allocated to me.
I would be grateful if you could confirm safe receipt of this email.
I note the contents of your email, in which you have confirmed that a review was carried out in respect of Mr Jones’ complaint, but that the Council has not yet provided Mr Jones with the review findings.
The nature of the complaint
Whilst I am grateful for your confirmation that the Council’s internal review upheld its original decision to redact information by virtue of section 40 of the Act, this issue does not form the basis of Mr Jones’ complaint to the Commissioner.
I have set out below the chronology of the request so far.
The request
From the information that has been provided to us, I understand that Mr Jones wrote to the Council on 29 July 2010 and requested:
“Please could you provide correspondence and minutes of all meetings that the eight Councillors had prior to the planning application meeting, with each other or other interested parties of the application, in relation to the Sainsburys application at Ashton Gate.
Please also include any meetings and correspondence with the Council’s Officers”.
The Council responded on 26 August 2010 and stated that the request made by the complainant was quite wide, and that it had interpreted the request for information as follows:
“All correspondence sent to committee members relating to the application site, from all objectors and responses and all information held relating to meetings held by any members of the committee, prior to the committee hearing”.
This information was provided to the complainant, with some information redacted by virtue of section 40(2) of the Act.
The complainant requested an internal review of the Council’s decision on 31 August 2010. Specifically, the complainant asked the Council to review its interpretation of his information request. Mr Jones also provided some specific examples of information that he had expected to receive as a result of his request. Mr Jones confirmed that he was seeking an internal review of the following:
- The Council’s interpretation of his information request. Mr Jones wished to clarify if the response provided by the Council on 26 August 2010 included the specific information that he was seeking access to. He explained that he was looking for:
- All correspondence and minutes of all meetings that the eight Councillors had prior to the planning permission, with each other or other interested parties of the application, in relation to the Sainsburys application at Ashton Gate
- Meetings and correspondence between the eight Councillors and the Officers – if any or all of the Councillors had a meeting with any of the Officers regarding the application, then a copy of the minutes should be provided
- Mr Jones also requested confirmation from the Council that no other further documentation (such as the independent Tesco retail impact report) was provided to any of the Councillors. If any such documentation was provided to any of the Councillors, then it appears that Mr Jones was seeking access to this information.
The scope of the investigation
Mr Jones’ complaint to the Commissioner currently focuses on the Council’s failure to provide an outcome to its internal review, and not on the redactions under section 40(2) of the information that he has already been provided with.
I would be grateful if the Council could arrange to issue Mr Jones with a full internal review response, which directly addresses the concerns that he raised in his correspondence of 31 August 2010. I would also be grateful if the Council could provide me with a copy of this correspondence. Once this has been done, I will contact Mr Jones to ascertain whether he is satisfied with the outcome of his complaint, or whether he wishes to pursue his complaint any further.
Access regime
It also falls to the Commissioner to determine whether the correct access regime has been applied to the request. Where possible, a decision as to whether the requested information is environmental should be based on what information is actually held by the Council in response to the request, rather than on an assessment of the request itself.
In view of the nature of the request, and in the absence of the information that has been provided to Mr Jones so far, I consider that this request may fall within the scope of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (the EIR) as opposed to the Act. I would therefore also be grateful if the Council could advise whether it agrees with my preliminary view that the information is environmental information, as defined in regulation 2(1) of the EIR. Please advise whether the Council considered that the request may fall within the scope of the EIR and if so, please provide the Council’s reasoning for determining that the information requested was not environmental information.
If the Council agrees that the request falls within the boundaries of the EIR, I will require the Council to re-consider the request under the EIR.
Summary
Given the length of time that the internal review process has been ongoing, I would be grateful if the Council could aim to provide Mr Jones with an outcome to its internal review, and a consideration of whether or not the information is environmental within the next 10 working days. I therefore look forward to hearing from you before 21 February 2011.
If you require any assistance in the meantime, please do not hesitate to contact me on 02920 448057, or by responding direct to this email.
Yours sincerely,
Alexandra Mathias
Senior Complaints Officer
____________________________________________________________________
The ICO’s mission is to uphold information rights in the public interest, promoting openness by public bodies and data privacy for individuals.
If you are not the intended recipient of this email (and any attachment), please inform the sender by return email and destroy all copies. Unauthorised access, use, disclosure, storage or copying is not permitted.
Communication by internet email is not secure as messages can be intercepted and read by someone else. Therefore we strongly advise you not to email any information, which if disclosed to unrelated third parties would be likely to cause you distress. If you have an enquiry of this nature please provide a postal address to allow us to communicate with you in a more secure way. If you want us to respond by email you must realise that there can be no guarantee of privacy.
Any email including its content may be monitored and used by the Information Commissioner's Office for reasons of security and for monitoring internal compliance with the office policy on staff use. Email monitoring or blocking software may also be used. Please be aware that you have a responsibility to ensure that any email you write or forward is within the bounds of the law.
The Information Commissioner's Office cannot guarantee that this message or any attachment is virus free or has not been intercepted and amended. You should perform your own virus checks.
__________________________________________________________________
Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF
Tel: 0303 123 1113 Fax: 01625 524 510 Web: www.ico.gov.uk