28 Grasmere Road [20/02911/CONR] - Application Decision

The request was partially successful.

Dear Croydon Borough Council,

Following the Council's determination of planning application
19/02898/DISC (27 February 2020) and as a result of the inspector's
decision at appeal (7 December 2020), Conditions 4 (landscaping) and 5
(sustainable drainage) remain NOT DISCHARGED.

I also note that 'retrospective' planning application 20/02911/CONR
(validated 06 Jul 2020) is still AWAITING DECISION. (The latest document
added to the website was published on 26 Feb 2021).

Despite the apparent non-determination, a number of the flats are now
occupied.

1. Please provide COPIES of any information relating to how the LPA has
attempted to determine these outstanding applications. The information
provided should include but not be restricted to the following :

1a. All correspondence with the applicant, agent and/or their consultants
(from November 2020 to date).

1b. Internal and external consultations and any comments provided by
consultees (statutory or otherwise) in the same period.

Yours faithfully,

Andrew White

Croydon Council,

FOI/EIR request
Our reference: 3936521

show quoted sections

Dear Croydon Council,

By law, the Council should normally have responded promptly and by 13th October 2021 at the latest.

If I do not receive the information requested by 20th October 2021, I will ask the Information Commissioner to intervene.

Yours sincerely,

Andrew White

Dear Mr White

We are sorry for the length of time it is taking to respond to your request. Unfortunately we have been unable to provide a response sooner due to resourcing. The current pandemic and the Councils financial situation has had a significant impact on the Council staffing numbers and resources and therefore we have been unable to respond sooner. This is not down to an intention to frustrate the process but purely down to reduced resources.

As an update the service have sent us the information that they hold, however we do need to read through and remove where necessary any third party information that cannot be released under GDPR . This task does take quite some time to undertake and we are very aware that your request is now overdue and will try and prioritise the response as soon as we can. We also need to prioritise this work along with other cases that are also overdue and waiting to be processed. We anticipate this to be complete within the next week or two.

Again please accept our apologies for this delay.

Kind regards

Information Team
Law & Governance Division
Resources Department
7th Floor, Zone C
Bernard Weatherill House
8 Mint Walk
Croydon CR0 1EA

[Croydon Borough Council request email]
[email address]

show quoted sections

Dear Croydon Council

Please do NOT send copies of the application documentation itself. This information is already available to us on the Council's website.

Also can you ensure that you do not send the "blanket approach" to the over-redaction of officers names, which may have already been overturned/corrected in previous requests after any internal review and/or the intervention of the Information Commissioner.

It is now 14 months past the 'determination deadline' for the application (20/02911/CONR), in what must be regarded as RETROSPECTIVE (s73A) planning application for the continuation of an UNLAWFUL development in which all properties have already been sold and occupied.

In these circumstances, a response 'within the next week or two' is NOT acceptable as you have had sufficient time since my first submission of the FOI on the 15th September 2021. If I do not receive COPIES of what information you hold by the 27th October 2021, I have no choice but to submit a complaint to the Information Commissioner.

Thanks
Andrew White

Croydon Council,

2 Attachments

FOI/EIR request
Our reference: 3936521

show quoted sections

Croydon Council,

1 Attachment

FOI/EIR request
Our reference: 3936521

show quoted sections

Croydon Council,

1 Attachment

FOI/EIR request
Our reference: 3936521

show quoted sections

Croydon Council,

1 Attachment

FOI/EIR request
Our reference: 3936521

show quoted sections

Croydon Council,

1 Attachment

FOI/EIR request
Our reference: 3936521

show quoted sections

Croydon Council,

1 Attachment

FOI/EIR request
Our reference: 3936521

show quoted sections

Croydon Council,

1 Attachment

FOI/EIR request
Our reference: 3936521

show quoted sections

Croydon Council,

1 Attachment

FOI/EIR request
Our reference: 3936521

show quoted sections

Croydon Council,

1 Attachment

FOI/EIR request
Our reference: 3936521

show quoted sections

Croydon Council,

1 Attachment

FOI/EIR request
Our reference: 3936521

show quoted sections

Croydon Council,

1 Attachment

FOI/EIR request
Our reference: 3936521

show quoted sections

Croydon Council,

1 Attachment

FOI/EIR request
Our reference: 3936521

show quoted sections

Croydon Council,

1 Attachment

FOI/EIR request
Our reference: 3936521

show quoted sections

Croydon Council,

1 Attachment

FOI/EIR request
Our reference: 3936521

show quoted sections

Croydon Council,

1 Attachment

FOI/EIR request
Our reference: 3936521

show quoted sections

Croydon Council,

1 Attachment

FOI/EIR request
Our reference: 3936521

show quoted sections

Croydon Council,

1 Attachment

FOI/EIR request
Our reference: 3936521

show quoted sections

Croydon Council,

1 Attachment

FOI/EIR request
Our reference: 3936521

show quoted sections

Croydon Council,

1 Attachment

FOI/EIR request
Our reference: 3936521

show quoted sections

Croydon Council,

1 Attachment

FOI/EIR request
Our reference: 3936521

show quoted sections

Croydon Council,

1 Attachment

FOI/EIR request
Our reference: 3936521

show quoted sections

Dear Croydon Council

The Council's continuing ‘blanket approach’ to redaction

You tell me “...We have removed names, emails, contact details and signatures of individuals, as this would lead to the identification of these individuals and would be disclosing personal data. Personal data as defined by the General Data Protection Regulation 2018, renders such data exempt from disclosure by virtue of Regulation 12(3) of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (“EIR”) read with the provisions of Regulation 13. ...”

As I understand it, Regulation 12(3) and 13 CAN have the effect of prohibiting the Council from disclosing third party personal data, but ONLY if this would breach the Data Protection Act.

Regulation 12(2) establishes a presumption in favour of disclosure. If the Council has established that an exception is engaged, it is THEN necessary to weigh the competing public interests, per regulation 12(1)(b). That is, the public interest in disclosing the information as weighed against the public interest in maintaining the exception.

I believe that the Council has neither shown WHY an exception is engaged in THIS case, nor carried out the Public Interest [PI] test as required by the legislation.

You also tell me “... We have also removed the names of officers of the council from this information as it has been the custom and practice for the Council to generally only release the names of staff down to ‘Head of Service’ level, which the Council considers meets the Transparency Code issued by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. Furthermore the council considers that this position is consistent with guidance issued by the Information Commissioner, including a Decision Notice issued in respect of a similar request FS50276863. ...”

It is pertinent to note that the DN relied upon, was issued in respect of a request made and handled under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 [FOIA]. The Response of 19 November 2021 makes clear however, that THIS request has rightly been considered under the provisions of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 [EIR] and the ‘presumption in favour of disclosure’ should therefore apply.

Decision Notice - ICO Case Reference FS50276863

I do not believe that the ICO Decision Notice [DN] referred to [FS50276863] DOES relate to a ‘similar request’.

Paragraph 5 of that DN confirms that initially the FSA claimed that its policy was “… not … to disclose details of staff below Head of Department level.” Paragraph 13 however, explains that “During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation …The FSA agreed to disclose the names of its employees who worked at the level of manager …. The FSA accepted the Commissioner’s preliminary view that such senior individuals within the organisation had a high level of accountability and responsibility which warranted the disclosure of their names”.

The ICO therefore does NOT adopt the simplified approach suggested by Croydon. Instead, the DN illustrates that for a request - which is not a routine matter for which a ‘formula’ is the only practical approach - ALL 3 fairness tests - or factors* - that the ICO has described need to be applied (see also the supplementary factors at paragraph 48). Their application must have specific regard to the situation.

The three factors ICO considers in judging fairness in disclosure:
1. the individual’s reasonable expectations of what would happen to their information;
2. the consequences of disclosure (if it would cause any unnecessary or unjustified damage or distress to the individual concerned); and
3. the balance between the rights and freedoms of the data subject and the legitimate interests of the public.
The supplementary factors that should be considered:
4. the seniority of the role
5. whether the role is public facing
6. whether the position involves a significant level of personal judgement and individual responsibility.
‘Seniority’ is therefore only ONE factor and the Council has NOT demonstrated the weighing of ALL the ‘factors’ set out by the ICO in guidance.

Local Government Transparency Code 2015 [DCLG]

Although the Code appears to deal essentially with pre-defined datasets and a routine publishing scheme, paragraph 6 helpfully explains “This Code ensures local people can now see ... how decisions are taken and who is taking them …”.

Paragraph 15 confirms that "….The Data Protection Act 1998 does not restrict or inhibit information being published about councilors or senior local authority officers because of the legitimate public interest in the scrutiny of such senior individuals and decision makers…".

As set out above, the DN relied upon explicitly demonstrates that the Code level of seniority was NOT accepted by the ICO as a sufficient basis for determining disclosure. That is because the decision-making powers/public facing nature etc of officers’ roles and public interest must all be weighed up.

Paragraph 22 of the Code also usefully clarifies that “… Where information would otherwise fall within one of the exemptions from disclosure, for instance, under … the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 … Local authorities should start from the PRESUMPTION OF OPENNESS AND DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION [my emphasis], and not rely on exemptions to withhold information unless absolutely necessary.”

Although I understand why those senior employees in scope for the Code are most likely to ‘tick the box’ against the three factors (esp. 1 and 3) much (if not all) of the time, that does NOT automatically 'eliminate' everyone else. It must depend on their role and the specific circumstances... and how the relevant ‘factors’ apply to those.

I believe that there may well be circumstances [like here] where it IS entirely appropriate to release the details of more junior officers, particularly [but not only] when those details are already in the public domain. As the ICO makes clear, “… there is a public interest in fully understanding the reasons for public authorities’ decisions, to remove any suspicion of manipulating the facts, or ‘spin’. For example, this may well be a public interest argument for disclosing advice given to decision makers. …”

There is a legitimate interest in public disclosure of the details of officers (usually ‘professionals’) who are employed by the authority to provide ‘specialist’ advice on particular aspects of a planning application, since this helps inform a case officer’s recommendation and thereby influence the ultimate decision. Such disclosures will therefore have the wider benefit of increasing public confidence in the reliability of the Council’s consultation and decision-making processes.

The information provided as part of other similar requests, clearly illustrates the significant reliance of the case officer on the specialist advice provided by the Council’s ‘Spatial Planning’, Trees’ and ‘Transportation’ teams, with their observations being repeated, often verbatim within a case officer's response.

- Please check whether the exception claimed has been properly applied

- I believe the Council’s approach amounts to a form of “blanket redaction” and I do NOT agree that this position “…is consistent with guidance issued by the Information Commissioner …” and/or the “ Decision Notice issued in respect of … FS50276863]…”. Indeed, I believe that both ICO guidance AND elements of the Notice strongly suggest that the Council should reconsider its position with regard to redaction of ‘personal data’ in this case and more generally.

- THIS request is being considered under the EIR and the ‘presumption in favour of disclosure’ should be applied. I believe the onus is [still] on the Council to clearly demonstrate WHY, in THIS case, it would be unfair to disclose the redacted information. If, for any piece of that information, they cannot so demonstrate, then the information should be disclosed.

NOTE : I believe that the disclosure of name (and in some cases email and contact details) of the following individuals, SHOULD be within their reasonable expectations :

the Applicant (Crystal Properties UK Ltd) - Ryan Luffman

the Architect/Agent (Go Planning) - Brian Gatenby, Sarita Dixit

Council officers - Barry Valentine, Chris Stacey, Lucas Zoricak, Jamar Alliman.

In any case, I believe that most, if not all of this personal data is likely to be already in the public domain.

Dear Croydon Borough Council,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Croydon Borough Council's handling of my FOI request '28 Grasmere Road [20/02911/CONR] - Application Decision'.

The Council's continuing ‘blanket approach’ to redaction

You tell me “...We have removed names, emails, contact details and signatures of individuals, as this would lead to the identification of these individuals and would be disclosing personal data. Personal data as defined by the General Data Protection Regulation 2018, renders such data exempt from disclosure by virtue of Regulation 12(3) of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (“EIR”) read with the provisions of Regulation 13. ...”

As I understand it, Regulation 12(3) and 13 CAN have the effect of prohibiting the Council from disclosing third party personal data, but ONLY if this would breach the Data Protection Act.

Regulation 12(2) establishes a presumption in favour of disclosure. If the Council has established that an exception is engaged, it is THEN necessary to weigh the competing public interests, per regulation 12(1)(b). That is, the public interest in disclosing the information as weighed against the public interest in maintaining the exception.

I believe that the Council has neither shown WHY an exception is engaged in THIS case, nor carried out the Public Interest [PI] test as required by the legislation.

You also tell me “... We have also removed the names of officers of the council from this information as it has been the custom and practice for the Council to generally only release the names of staff down to ‘Head of Service’ level, which the Council considers meets the Transparency Code issued by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. Furthermore the council considers that this position is consistent with guidance issued by the Information Commissioner, including a Decision Notice issued in respect of a similar request FS50276863. ...”

It is pertinent to note that the DN relied upon, was issued in respect of a request made and handled under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 [FOIA]. The Response of 19 November 2021 makes clear however, that THIS request has rightly been considered under the provisions of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 [EIR] and the ‘presumption in favour of disclosure’ should therefore apply.

Decision Notice - ICO Case Reference FS50276863

I do not believe that the ICO Decision Notice [DN] referred to [FS50276863] DOES relate to a ‘similar request’.

Paragraph 5 of that DN confirms that initially the FSA claimed that its policy was “… not … to disclose details of staff below Head of Department level.” Paragraph 13 however, explains that “During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation …The FSA agreed to disclose the names of its employees who worked at the level of manager …. The FSA accepted the Commissioner’s preliminary view that such senior individuals within the organisation had a high level of accountability and responsibility which warranted the disclosure of their names”.

The ICO therefore does NOT adopt the simplified approach suggested by Croydon. Instead, the DN illustrates that for a request - which is not a routine matter for which a ‘formula’ is the only practical approach - ALL 3 fairness tests - or factors* - that the ICO has described need to be applied (see also the supplementary factors at paragraph 48). Their application must have specific regard to the situation.

The three factors ICO considers in judging fairness in disclosure:
1. the individual’s reasonable expectations of what would happen to their information;
2. the consequences of disclosure (if it would cause any unnecessary or unjustified damage or distress to the individual concerned); and
3. the balance between the rights and freedoms of the data subject and the legitimate interests of the public.
The supplementary factors that should be considered:
4. the seniority of the role
5. whether the role is public facing
6. whether the position involves a significant level of personal judgement and individual responsibility.
‘Seniority’ is therefore only ONE factor and the Council has NOT demonstrated the weighing of ALL the ‘factors’ set out by the ICO in guidance.

Local Government Transparency Code 2015 [DCLG]

Although the Code appears to deal essentially with pre-defined datasets and a routine publishing scheme, paragraph 6 helpfully explains “This Code ensures local people can now see ... how decisions are taken and who is taking them …”.

Paragraph 15 confirms that "….The Data Protection Act 1998 does not restrict or inhibit information being published about councillors or senior local authority officers because of the legitimate public interest in the scrutiny of such senior individuals and decision makers…".

As set out above, the DN relied upon explicitly demonstrates that the Code level of seniority was NOT accepted by the ICO as a sufficient basis for determining disclosure. That is because the decision-making powers/public facing nature etc of officers’ roles and public interest must all be weighed up.

Paragraph 22 of the Code also usefully clarifies that “… Where information would otherwise fall within one of the exemptions from disclosure, for instance, under … the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 … Local authorities should start from the PRESUMPTION OF OPENNESS AND DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION [my emphasis], and not rely on exemptions to withhold information unless absolutely necessary.”

Although I understand why those senior employees in scope for the Code are most likely to ‘tick the box’ against the three factors (esp. 1 and 3) much (if not all) of the time, that does NOT automatically 'eliminate' everyone else. It must depend on their role and the specific circumstances... and how the relevant ‘factors’ apply to those.

I believe that there may well be circumstances [like here] where it IS entirely appropriate to release the details of more junior officers, particularly [but not only] when those details are already in the public domain. As the ICO makes clear, “… there is a public interest in fully understanding the reasons for public authorities’ decisions, to remove any suspicion of manipulating the facts, or ‘spin’. For example, this may well be a public interest argument for disclosing advice given to decision makers. …”

There is a legitimate interest in public disclosure of the details of officers (usually ‘professionals’) who are employed by the authority to provide ‘specialist’ advice on particular aspects of a planning application, since this helps inform a case officer’s recommendation and thereby influence the ultimate decision. Such disclosures will therefore have the wider benefit of increasing public confidence in the reliability of the Council’s consultation and decision-making processes.

The information provided as part of other similar requests, clearly illustrates the significant reliance of the case officer on the specialist advice provided by the Council’s ‘Spatial Planning’, Trees’ and ‘Transportation’ teams, with their observations being repeated, often verbatim within a case officer's response.

- Please check whether the exception claimed has been properly applied

- I believe the Council’s approach amounts to a form of “blanket redaction” and I do NOT agree that this position “…is consistent with guidance issued by the Information Commissioner …” and/or the “ Decision Notice issued in respect of … FS50276863]…”. Indeed, I believe that both ICO guidance AND elements of the Notice strongly suggest that the Council should reconsider its position with regard to redaction of ‘personal data’ in this case and more generally.

- THIS request is being considered under the EIR and the ‘presumption in favour of disclosure’ should be applied. I believe the onus is [still] on the Council to clearly demonstrate WHY, in THIS case, it would be unfair to disclose the redacted information. If, for any piece of that information, they cannot so demonstrate, then the information should be disclosed.

NOTE : I believe that the disclosure of name (and in some cases email and contact details) of the following individuals, SHOULD be within their reasonable expectations :

the Applicant (Crystal Properties UK Ltd) - Ryan Luffman

the Architect/Agent (Go Planning) - Brian Gatenby, Sarita Dixit

Council officers - Barry Valentine, Chris Stacey, Lucas Zoricak, Jamar Alliman.

In any case, I believe that most, if not all of this personal data is likely to be already in the public domain.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/28...

Yours faithfully,

Andrew White

Croydon Council,

FOI/EIR request
Our reference: 3936521

show quoted sections

Adebambo, Olawale,

1 Attachment

BY EMAIL ONLY

 

Internal Review Request under the Environmental Information Regulations
2004

Our reference: Internal Review 3936521

 

 

Dear Andrew White,

 

Further to our email to you dated 24 November 2021 acknowledging your
request for an Internal Review. You asked the Council to reconsider your
request as you were concerned you had not been provided with all the
information requested. Please accept our apology for the delay responding
to you. I have now concluded this review and I am able to reply as
follows:

 

In your request for information dated 15 September 2021 you requested the
following information:

 

“Following the Council's determination of planning application
19/02898/DISC (27 February 2020) and as a result of the inspector's
decision at appeal (7 December 2020), Conditions 4 (landscaping) and 5
(sustainable drainage) remain NOT DISCHARGED.

I also note that 'retrospective' planning application 20/02911/CONR
(validated 06 Jul 2020) is still AWAITING DECISION. (The latest document
added to the website was published on 26 Feb 2021). Despite the apparent
non-determination, a number of the flats are now occupied.

1. Please provide COPIES of any information relating to how the LPA has
attempted to determine these outstanding applications. The information
provided should include but not be restricted to the following :

1a. All correspondence with the applicant, agent and/or their consultants
(from November 2020 to date).

1b. Internal and external consultations and any comments provided by
consultees (statutory or otherwise) in the same period”.

 

The Council responded to you on 19 November 2021 and provided the
following response:

 

In response to your request please see attached pdf.  Due to the size of
the attachments we are sending these to you in batches. When we come to
the last batch we will inform you that there are no further documents
being sent to you. We have removed names, emails, contact details and
signatures of individuals, as this would lead to the identification of
these individuals and would be disclosing personal data. Personal data as
defined by the General Data Protection Regulation 2018, renders such data
exempt from disclosure by virtue of Regulation 12(3) of the Environmental
Information Regulations 2004 (“EIR”) read with the provisions of
Regulation 13.

 

It is important to remember that when information is released under the
Environmental Information Regulations 2004, it is considered released to
the wider public. Any such disclosure of personal information would not be
compliant with the provisions of the General Data Protection Regulations
2018.

 

We have also removed the names of officers of the council from this
information as it has been the custom and practice for the Council to
generally only release the names of staff down to ‘Head of Service’ level,
which the Council considers meets the Transparency Code issued by the
Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government.  Furthermore the
council considers that this position is consistent with guidance issued by
the Information Commissioner, including a Decision Notice issued in
respect of a similar request FS50276863.

 

On 23 November 2021 you requested an Internal Review. I have not set out
the full text of your Review request but I have read it in full. Your
principle concern appears to be about the approach the Council has taken
in respect of personal data. You speak of a ‘…continuing blanket approach
to redaction’ on the part of the Council. You say:

 

You tell me “...We have removed names, emails, contact details and
signatures of individuals, as this would lead to the identification of
these individuals and would be disclosing personal data. Personal data as
defined by the General Data Protection Regulation 2018, renders such data
exempt from disclosure by virtue of Regulation 12(3) of the Environmental
Information Regulations 2004 (“EIR”) read with the provisions of
Regulation 13. ...”

As I understand it, Regulation 12(3) and 13 CAN have the effect of
prohibiting the Council from disclosing third party personal data, but
ONLY if this would breach the Data Protection Act.

Regulation 12(2) establishes a presumption in favour of disclosure. If the
Council has established that an exception is engaged, it is THEN necessary
to weigh the competing public interests, per regulation 12(1)(b). That is,
the public interest in disclosing the information as weighed against the
public interest in maintaining the exception.

I believe that the Council has neither shown WHY an exception is engaged
in THIS case, nor carried out the Public Interest [PI] test as required by
the legislation.

 

Some of your other comments are:

 

-          I believe that there may well be circumstances [like here]
where it IS entirely appropriate to release the details of more junior
officers, particularly [but not only] when those details are already in
the public domain. As the ICO makes clear, “… there is a public interest
in fully understanding the reasons for public authorities’ decisions, to
remove any suspicion of manipulating the facts, or ‘spin’. For example,
this may well be a public interest argument for disclosing advice given to
decision makers. …”

 

-          There is a legitimate interest in public disclosure of the
details of officers (usually ‘professionals’) who are employed by the
authority to provide ‘specialist’ advice on particular aspects of a
planning application, since this helps inform a case officer’s
recommendation and thereby influence the ultimate decision. Such
disclosures will therefore have the wider benefit of increasing public
confidence in the reliability of the Council’s consultation and
decision-making processes.

 

-          Please check whether the exception claimed has been properly
applied

 

-          I believe the Council’s approach amounts to a form of “blanket
redaction” and I do NOT agree that this position “…is consistent with
guidance issued by the Information Commissioner …” and/or the “ Decision
Notice issued in respect of … FS50276863]…”. Indeed, I believe that both
ICO guidance AND elements of the Notice strongly suggest that the Council
should reconsider its position with regard to redaction of ‘personal data’
in this case and more generally.

 

-          THIS request is being considered under the EIR and the
‘presumption in favour of disclosure’ should be applied. I believe the
onus is [still] on the Council to clearly demonstrate WHY, in THIS case,
it would be unfair to disclose the redacted information. If, for any piece
of that information, they cannot so demonstrate, then the information
should be disclosed.

 

I have looked closely at the issues raised in both your Internal Review
and your original request. As mentioned, your concern is about what you
describe as a ‘blanket approach’ being taken by the Council to information
requests involving third party personal data. You say disclosure of the
personal data in this instance would not breach the General Data
Protection Regulation (GDPR). While you acknowledge that regulation 12(3)
and 13 can prohibit disclosure of third party personal data, your position
is that the exception is not engaged.

 

Personal data is defined in the Data Protection Act (DPA) 2018 as ‘any
information relating to an identified or identifiable living individual….’
The personal data in question comprises names, emails, contact details and
signatures of individuals (i.e. information relating to an identified or
identifiable individual). The Council’s positon was that regulation 12(3)
was engaged and on that basis it withheld the information. It said it had
removed this data as to do otherwise ‘…would be disclosing personal data
to you’.

 

I note your comment that Regulation 12(2) establishes a presumption in
favour of disclosure and your further comments touching on the public
interest. It is my view however that the Council was correct in its
application of Regulation 12(3), which is a mandatory provision and does
not involve weighing the public interest. The withheld information (names,
email addresses, etc.) is personal data as defined by the DPA and that
being so, the Council was under a duty to consider whether disclosing it
would contravene the GDPR. In the event the Council concluded against
doing so as it would cause ‘…the identification of these individuals and
would be disclosing personal data’.  

 

Regulation 13 (1) provides that information is exempt if it is personal
data and if one of the listed conditions is satisfied. The relevant parts
of the regulation are:

 

13 (1) –

 

‘To the extent that the information requested includes personal data of
which the applicant is not the data subject a public authority must not
disclose the personal data if –

(a)  The first condition is satisfied…

 

(2A) The first condition is that the disclosure of the information to a
member of the public otherwise than under these Regulations —

 

(a)  would contravene any of the data protection principles….’

 

The relevant condition was Regulation 13 (2A) (a) ‘…disclosure otherwise
than under the regulations would contravene any of the data protection
principles’. The condition relates to the processing of personal data as
provided for in GDPR Article 5, that personal data shall be processed
lawfully fairly and transparently on one of the basis listed in GDPR
Article 6. Names, email addresses, etc. are personal data and having
subjected the information to consideration under the GDPR and concluded
that it was not able to disclose the data without contravening data
protection principles, regulation 12(3) exemption was engaged at that
point. The Council was under an obligation not to disclose the
information.

 

When information is released under the EIRs it is considered released to
the wider public. The Council disclosed all the information you had
requested, save it withheld the names, email addresses etc. (the personal
data). The Council did not have consent to disclose the data, and in that
wise the other lawful basis open to it was Article 6 (1) (f) ‘legitimate
interest’. The legitimate interest involves a public body considering
whether its own interests in processing personal data could justify
disclosure notwithstanding the interests of the data subjects (the owners
of information). 

 

While the formal response did not set out the Council’s specific
interests, the letter points to the Council balancing its interests and
those of the data subjects when it said ’It is important to remember that
when information is released under the Environmental Information
Regulations 2004, it is considered released to the wider public. Any such
disclosure of personal information would not be compliant with the
provisions of the General Data Protection Regulations 2018’. In sum, the
Council did not see that placing the personal data in the public domain
outweighed any of its interests (for example, transparency) so as to
justify disclosure. Save the personal data, all the information you
requested was disclosed to you. I do not conclude disclosure of the
personal data was warranted in this instance. My view is that Regulation
12 (3) is engaged.

 

The Transparency Code

 

While I note the Council referred in its formal response to the
Transparency Code issued by the Secretary of State for Communities and
Local Government, the personal information in question was withheld based
on the legal provisions (EIR Regulation 12 (3)), not the Transparency
Code. The information the Council provided about the code and how it is
applied internally within the Council, does not alter that the personal
data (names and contact details) was withheld based on Regulation 12(3).

 

If you are not happy with the outcome of this internal review, you have
the right to apply directly to the Information Commissioner for a
decision. The Information Commissioner can be contacted at:

 

Information Commissioner’s Office

Wycliffe House

Water Lane

Wilmslow

Cheshire SK9 5AF

 

Yours sincerely,

 

 

 

Olawale Adebambo

Interim Corporate Solicitor

 

[1]cid:995D36CC-63D9-452C-921A-47E295D9BC0F

Resources Directorate

Legal Services Division

7th Floor Zone C
Bernard Weatherill House

8 Mint Walk

Croydon CR0 1EA

 

To allow us to deal with the disruption caused by Coronavirus /COVID-19
please communicate with us only by email and not by post. Our lawyers and
support colleagues may be working from different locations. Legal Services
will communicate electronically only. We do not have a fax in our service.
We will accept service of court proceedings for the Council by email on
any business day between the hours of 9am and 4.30pm. Any email received
after 4.30pm will be deemed to be served on us the next business day. The
email address for service is [2][email address]

 

Council services, online, 24/7 www.croydon.gov.uk/myaccount.

Please use this web site address to view the council's e-mail disclaimer -
http://www.croydon.gov.uk/email-disclaimer

References

Visible links
2. mailto:[email address]