BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
Information Commissioner's Office |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Information Commissioner's Office >> Nottingham City Council (Local government (City council)) [2007] UKICO FER0091004 (27 March 2007) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKICO/2007/FER0091004.html Cite as: [2007] UKICO FER0091004, [2007] UKICO FER91004 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
27 March 2007, Local government (City council)
The complainant wrote to Nottingham City Council (the “Council”) on 11 February, 21 March and 23 October 2005 requesting information relating to the relocation of Blenheim Lane allotments to a new site. The Commissioner’s decision in this matter is that the Council’s responses to the complainant’s requests failed to comply with regulation 5 (time for compliance), regulation 14 (refusal to disclose) and regulation 7 in extending the time to respond to the requests on the basis of the complexity of its consideration of the public interest test under the Environmental Regulations 2004 (“EIR”). The Commissioner has decided that the Council correctly applied regulation 13 in refusing to provide to the complainant information about the individual compensation awarded to named allotment holders. The Commissioner has ordered the Council to respond to the outstanding aspects of the complainant’s requests for information dated 11 February, 21 March and 23 October 2005 by clearly confirming or denying what information it holds and providing information to which he is entitled or indicating the basis on which the information is exempt from disclosure in accordance with its obligations under regulation 14.
EIR 5: Upheld
