Council threatened with High Court action over witheld information
The Information Commissioner rebuked the council and pointed out that it had a financial interest in the outcome of the planning application at the centre of the row.
However the council continued to challenge the commissioner’s findings in a statement this week.
Jan Giggins, who lives in Priory Road, Hungerford, wrote to the council’s monitoring officer asking him to investigate the approval of the application to redevelop the Priory and Platt Court in Hungerford back in November 2010.
She said: “Unfortunately the matter was not fully investigated, which led me to pursue enquiries of my own.”
Mrs Giggins said the council then tried to block her investigation by branding her Freedom of Information (FOI) Act inquiries “vexatious.”
She complained to the Information Commissioner’s Office, which investigated and case officer Steven Dickinson has ruled in her favour.
Last September Mrs Giggins asked for the information including any correspondence between the council and the applicant, agent, consultees or objectors relating to the requirement, or lack thereof, for an environmental impact assessment or screening option.
The same month the council refused the request on the grounds that it was vexatious and confirmed its decision following an internal review.
Following the intervention of the Information Commissioner, the council produced a further response - this time branding the request “manifestly unreasonable.”
Mr Dickinson noted that the council had “agreed to enter into a risk-sharing arrangement with the developers, which indicates that the council had a financial interest in the outcome of the planning and development and that the complainant contends that the council is attempting to use the provisions of FOI and EIR regulations to delay answering her questions until such time as the information is no longer useful.”
In his report, Mr Dickinson said: “The complainant requested information relating to the environmental impact screening for a proposed development. The public authority refused the request as ‘manifestly unreasonable.’
“The Commissioner’s decision is that West Berkshire Council has incorrectly applied the provisions of regulation....and, by its refusal of the request, has not dealt with the request in accordance with the Environmental Information Regulations (EIR) 2004.”
Mrs Giggins said: “The ruling in my favour highlights some of the failings of the council regarding how they deal with FOI, particularly when the questions are ones they don’t want to answer.”
The decision notice also ruled that the information sought by Mrs Giggins was not already in the public domain - a ruling the council still disputes.
The council must now provide the information within 35 daysof the ruling or face a contempt of court action in the High Court.
Despite the ruling that the information was not available publicly, council spokeswoman peta Stoddart-Crompton said: “The council is disappointed by this decision, not least because all the information requested by Mrs Giggins is in the public planning file and therefore accessible to her without a request.
“However, it will comply given that to challenge it and take it to the Information Tribunal would be a disproportionate use of public funds.”