EIR

July 18th, 2024 by James Goudie KC

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.

Comments are closed.