In relation to the use by the public of a way over land, and limitation, in RAMBLERS ASSOCIATION v SoS ( 2025 ) EWHC 537 ( Admin ) the Court considers the meanings in Section 31 of the Highways Act 1980 of “actually enjoyed” and “interruption.”

A local authority had not been entitled under Regulation 12(4)(a) of the ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REGULATIONS to decline an Information Request for a List or Map of which roads would be subject to a new 20 mph speed limit on the ground that it did not “ hold “ the information. So held in ROBERTS v INFORMATION COMMISSIONER ( 2025 ) UK FTT 111 ( GRC ). The authority held the necessary information, albeit in a different format. Producing a list or map would not require any particular skill or judgment outside that found within its staff. Where information requested under the EIR or the FoIA could be produced only from raw data or building blocks through some processing or other operation, whether the information is “ held “ depends upon the complexity of the operations needing to be performed and the degree of skill and judgment necessary to if a particular building block should be regarded as contributing to the requested information.

A draft report relating to the Council’s environmental LOW TRAFFIC NEIGHBOURHOOD scheme was the subject matter of GREENWICH RLBC v INFORMATION COMMISSIONER ( 2025 ) UK FTT 85 ( GRC ). This remained a live and contentious issue at the time of the information request. There was the real possibility of litigation. It is held that a document does not have to be legally privileged to qualify for exemption from disclosure under EIR Reg 12(5)(b). The test is whether disclosure would adversely affect the course of justice ( paras 41 & 53 ). Moreover, LPP attaches to documents where the sole purpose is to seek legal advice, including such a document created before legal advice is sought ( paras 37-40 ). Also, Reg 12(4)(d) applied ( paras 44-53 inc  ), the purpose of which is to allow public authorities to think in private.

In MOONEY v INFORMATION COMMISSIONER (2024) UK FTT 620 (GRC) the FTT upholds the Commissioner’s decision that Lincolnshire County Council as a Mineral and Waste Planning Authority was entitled to rely on exemptions in the Environmental Information Regulations 2004, including that the request for information about a new Local Plan related to material which is still “in the course of completion”, which was actively being worked upon, or will continue to be worked on within a reasonable time.

That there is a strong public interest in transparency in relation to the Council’s decision making processes, where the ultimate outcome of that process will be the placing of sites for working and extracting minerals.  Given the potential impact on residents of a plant and bagging site near their homes, there is a clear public interest in transparency and in ensuring accountability for decisions taken by the Council. The wider environmental impact of the placing of a site also adds significantly to the public interest.

However, the extent to which this public interest is served by disclosure of this particular information at this particular time is limited.  No final decision had been made.  The time for public consultation on the proposed sites had not yet arrived. Information has been and will be placed in the public domain.  The process has a built in opportunity for informed scrutiny and challenge by the public at a later date before any final decisions are taken in relation to sites.

On the other hand, the FTT accepted that there is a need for a safe place for the Council to develop ideas, debate issues and reach decisions away from external interference and distraction.  They accepted that good governance is served by officers being able to fully engage with each other and third parties away from public scrutiny. While a process is ongoing.  This carries significant weight where the process is at an early stage, as in this case.  The FTT find that there is a strong public interest in maintaining the exception, and that, at the date of response to the request, even taking full account of the presumption of disclosure, the public interest clearly favoured maintaining that exception.

In SURREY SEARCHES LTD v NORTHUMBRIAN WATER LTD ( ( 2024 ) EWHC 1643 ( Ch ) the Court was required to determine the interpretation and application of the ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION REGULATIONS 2004 ( the EIR ) in water and drainage Search Reports in conveyancing transactions. Personal search providers asserted that charges levied by water and sewage companies for property Search Reports were unlawful because they alleged the information should have been provided free, or for a reasonable charge, under the EIR. The Court however concluded that not all the information responsive to the questions was “ environmental information “ within the EIR.

The EIR fell to be interpreted in accordance with the language and objectives of Directive 2003/4, and the Directive, in turn with those of the AARHUS CONVENTION 2001.

The case also concerned ( 1 ) whether environmental information was “ held “ , (2)  whether information was “ personal data “ that did not have to be disclosed without a confidentiality restriction, and ( 3 ) the charging regime.

One of the questions in R ( DAW ) v STAFFORDSHIRE COUNCIL ( 2024 ) EWHC 963 ( Admin ) was whether there was a lawful delegation to the Council Officer who made the Order pursuant to Section 101 ( 2 ) of the Local Government Act 1972. This was not a case in which the nature of the function was such that even in the absence of express delegation one officer may be regarded as having authority to act on behalf of another officer who is authorised to exercise the function. Of course, an officer who has been authorised may not sub-delegate the performance of that function to another officer. The Judge concluded that on the proper interpretation of the Council’s Constitution and Scheme of Delegation the Scheme was effective to delegate power to make the decision to the Officer who made the Order, provided that he exercised the power in accordance with the restrictions in the Scheme, as he did in the circumstances.

The issue before the Court of Appeal in R ( BALL ) v HINCKLEY & BOSWORTH COUNCIL ( 2024 ) EWCA Civ 433 was whether a local authority, as distinct from a Magistrates’ Court, has the power,  to vary an Abatement Notice which it has issued against a statutory nuisance under Section 80 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, either expressly or by necessary implication, and whether or not in conjunction with the incidental power in Section 111 of the Local Government Act 1972. No, says the Court, allowing the appeal. Nor was the General Power of Competence in Section 1 of the Localism Act 2011 applicable.

WORCESTERSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL v PAIN ( 2024 ) EWHC 913 ( Admin ) concerns notices served under Section 24 of the Land Drainage Act 1991. The Court interprets the notices, considers the clarity and lawfulness of the requirement when properly interpreted, and addresses severability of the requirement from the balance of  the notices.

The European Court of Human Rights has delivered Grand Chamber rulings in three climate changes. In one of these, SCHWEISS v SWITZERLAND a complaint was made about the consequences of global warming on living conditions and health. The complaint was that the Swiss authorities were not taking sufficient action to mitigate the effects of climate change.

The Court found that the European Convention of Human Rights encompasses a right to effective protection by the State authorities from the serious adverse effects of climate change on lives, health, well-being and quality of life. The Court held that there had been a violation of the right to respect for private and family life and that there had had been a violation of the right of access to the Court. The Court found that the Swiss Confederation had failed to comply with its positive obligations under the Convention concerning climate change.

The Secretary of State for Transport has made a series of announcements to implement the PLAN FOR DRIVERS. The package includes Guidance on 20 mph speed limits bus lanes, and lane rental schemes, as well as on LTNs. It also gives warning of restrictions on a local authority’s ability to enforce traffic restrictions.