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 >> South Oxfordshire District Council (Local government (District council)) [2015] UKICO FS50576350 (13 October 2015) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKICO/2015/FS50576350.html Cite as: [2015] UKICO FS50576350 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
13 October 2015, Local government (District council)
The complainant requested notes of site visits by South Oxfordshire District Council officers to the site of works that had been taking place within an area of woodland. He also asked to see related correspondence between SODC and third parties including the Forestry Commission. SODC initially responded under FOIA but subsequently applied the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (SI 2004 No 3391) (the EIRs) and disclosed a considerable volume of information, including items from its correspondence with the Forestry Commission. SODC withheld some personal information relying on the EIR regulation 13(2) exception and additionally relied on the exception in regulation 12(4)(a) in maintaining that no more information was held that came within the scope of the request. The complainant did not challenge the application of the regulation 13(2) exception to the personal information being withheld. However, he remained dissatisfied and approached the Commissioner who investigated and made detailed enquiries of SODC. The Commissioner is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that SODC is not withholding further information and therefore he upheld the SODC reliance on the regulation 12(4)(a) EIR exception. He also found that SODC did not fully comply with regulation 5(2) in that not all of the requested information had been provided within 20 working days of the date of the request. The Commissioner requires no further steps to be taken.
EIR 5(2): Upheld EIR 13(2): Not upheld EIR 12(4)(a): Not upheld
