![FT/EA/2024/0478 - [2025] UKFTT 01244 (GRC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_kmf8vDg.png){kind=logo}
FT/EA/2024/0478 - [2025] UKFTT 01244 (GRC)
Fecha: 23-Oct-2025
Introduction
The Appellant (as is suggested by its name) is a commercial organisation concerned with the provision of sewerage services to properties which are not connected to the installations of the water companies; on his account there are approximately one million such properties. The Second Respondent is a public body concerned with many aspects of the protection of the environment and in particular with the monitoring and protection of the quality of water bodies – rivers streams and groundwater. One of the EA.’s roles is to issue permits for the discharge of material from sewage installations to the environment. The framework for this is laid down in statutory instruments made by the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Appeals against decisions of the EA with respect to these permits are to the Planning Inspectorate. One of the services the Appellant provides for its clients is applying for such permits and there has been extensive contact between the Appellant and the EA over the years.
On 22 February 2023 the director of the Appellant wrote to the EA:
To whom it concerns,
Please raise a freedom of information request for the following, all of which has previously been requested and not provided. We expect this to be provided within 20 working days 21/03/23
[redacted reference number and address 1]
•* We require a working and accessible version of the model used by the groundwater team that calculated a 10mg/l l-N as ammoniacal nitrogen limit to be enacted. This should have no hidden or protected cells or hardcoded formula. The Groundwater team have said they calculated this, let us see it as requested.
We require a copy of internal emails, both relating to the groundwater and permitting teams relating to this application.
[second number and address]
• * We require a copy of internal emails, both relating to the groundwater and permitting teams relating to this application.
The Permitting team's introduction of 5-day deadlines on requests for information.
• * All internal emails relating to the introduction and purpose of this deadline.
• * Copies of the presentations used to inform staff of this change and its benefits etc.
On 12 May the EA responded
Due to the large amount of files we needed to get across to you, I have sent these via ShareFile in 3 sections.
• * 1/3 - The Permitting team’s introduction of 5-day deadlines on requests for information.
• redacted address 1.
• redacted address 2.
Please could you confirm safe receipt of these documents and do not hesitate to get in touch if you have any problems downloading anything, or have any questions.
On 12 and 18 September the director of the Appellant made a complaint:
We have on several occasions requested an unprotected auditable copy of the Groundwater risk assessment sheet associated with application: [redacted address 1]. We have intentionally not been provided with this despite our clear and repeated statements that the file had been password-protected which prevents us from auditing and analysing it. In the condition the spreadsheet was supplied it has no value. The Environment Agency and the Permitting team have repeatedly denied and ignored this statement of fact and intentionally not provided it to us, including under a Freedom of Information request. Despite the facts being obvious to even someone with basic Excel knowledge, we have been forced to engage an independent Excel expert who concurs with our assessment (please see the attached) that the file is not auditable. We will be dealing with the issues, errors, ignored queries and failure of the model to support the numerical limit imposed separately.
The Environment Agency have Intentionally attempted to mislead us….
Intentionally ignored our requests for a working auditable copy of the spreadsheet throughout the application process (IRFI 21), which is part of the repeated pattern of behaviour encountered by applicants….
The reason for the Permitting team intentionally misleading us is that the Groundwater risk assessment was known to them to be materially erroneous, which they have intentionally tried to hide because this process, which in their position as a regulator has driven wholly unnecessary Environmental Damage, Damage to Human Life, potentially premature deaths and financial losses, which just for our company are in the £100,000's.
The costs of attempting to get to this point are £3k+VAT which we expect to recompensed with.
All the best
Andy Foreman
On 12 September a response was sent from the EA:
It is my understanding that the Groundwater Risk assessment sheet for Little Acre was part of the Freedom of Information request response.
I have attached the sheet, which appears to me to have no password protection on it.
I have previously pointed you to the Ground water risk assessment - infiltration worksheet which can be accessed from H1 annex 15: infiltration worksheet - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk).
On 15 September the EA wrote:
The only thing I can suggest is to check that you are "enabling editing" on opening the spreadsheet. Also that the blue cells are the ones that allow data entry.
19 September a response was sent by the EA:
To recap - we couldn't agree on the password protected status of the Groundwater Risk assessment spreadsheet tool. The versions you have been presented with are the publicly available versions and the working version for the Little Acre permit application. Data scenarios can be performed on these versions via the blue cells.
Your interest is on the calculations, which the spreadsheet performs to arrive at the values in the grey "calculated" cells.
Each Grey cell includes a formula showing how the value has been derived, plus there is some commentary on where values have been brought from elsewhere in the spreadsheet.
I acknowledge that you are asking for a completely open version of the spreadsheet and I am investigating whether that is possible. Please be aware that it may not be, because of practicality and reasonable time and effort required.
I am sorry that our phone call didn't focus on your specific interest in the calculations. From previous email it may be around calculation of infiltration rates. If there any specific calculations that you want to know how they are derived, please let me know.
Other responses in progress:
….
On 20 October the Appellant complained to the IC. The IC investigated. During the course of the investigation the EA provided further information and explanations. The focus of the IC investigation was (Decision Notice paragraph 4)
The complainant’s ICO complaint only relates to one part of the request, where the complainant requested a “working and accessible” version of the model used by EA as part of its assessment of an environmental permit application. The complainant stated that this model “should have no hidden or protected cells or hardcoded formula”.
On 10 June 2024 the IC published decision notice IC-271898-T1Y5. This confirmed that the request was for environmental information and that the EA was entitled to rely on an exception to the duty to disclose environmental information regulation 12(4)(b) (the ‘manifestly unreasonable’ exception). In coming to this conclusion the IC considered questions of the value and purpose of the request, noting that only the Appellant appeared to be concerned about the issue and accepting the EA’s explanation:
35 EA argued that disclosure of the spreadsheets without password protection wouldn’t be in the public interest, as it would remove trust and confidence in EA’s capability to conduct permit determinations accurately, fairly and independently, for the benefit of permit holders and the environment. It would mean EA having to check the calculations used by permit applicants, extending the application process and impacting EA’s ability to process the type of environmental permits in question. EA also noted significant cost implications of such a disclosure.
He noted that there were other means of challenging permit determinations and concluded that the request had little value.
He noted the rising number of requests and complaints from the Appellant created a burden for the EA and that (DN paragraph 43)
The complainant themselves provided the Commissioner with a document indicating that between 16 and 25 January 2024, the complainant requested “all documents, files and emails” or “all documents, emails, files, calculations and worksheets” relating to a total of 10 environmental permit applications
In considering the motive of the request the IC concluded
56 Ultimately the Commissioner considers that there’s an element of attacking EA over policies and decisions the complainant disagrees with.
The IC found that a degree of harassment and distress was experienced by EA staff at the time this request was made (DN paragraph 59)
Given the impact of the requests and their small value (60-63) the IC found the exception was engaged (Paragraphs 60-63). He found that while there was some interest in disclosure it would primarily serve the Appellant’s private interests and the request was properly characterised as manifestly unreasonable (paragraphs 64-74).
In its appeal the Appellant argued that there was a clear public interest in disclosure, the request was not burdensome. The Appellant provided an explanation of a development in the regulatory framework for discharges from small domestic systems introduced by the General Binding Rules with effect from January 2015 indicating that it considered that they were inappropriate. The Appellant argued that there was not a significant burden imposed on the EA by the requests, that the material supplied to it was inadequate to assess the calculations carried out by the EA. He acknowledged that EA had explained that they were implementing policy determined by DEFRA “[EA] are effectively just the prison warders following orders”
In resisting the appeal the EA drew attention to the risks and additional work involved in checking calculations in each permit application which would arise if the material were released in an unprotected form, it was reasonable not to provide advice and assistance A user manual provides a full explanation of the calculations, accordingly no benefit flows from publication of the software without protection, but there are risks are created that the protected cells could be tampered with making the permitting process more difficult. It addressed the burden of dealing with the multiple requests from the Appellant and the failure to follow the proper route for challenging the EA’s decisions. Corresponding with the Appellant’s usually technical, lengthy, detailed complaints and overlapping requests places a significant burden on the permitting team and distracts it from delivering its core functions. In considering the motive for the request the EA contended:
It is clear the Appellant seeks the information to challenge the Agency’s use of the Spreadsheet as part of the SSD groundwater permit determination process. As we have previously informed the Appellant this is a legal / policy matter for the Department of Environment and Rural Affairs (Defra) which the Appellant is free to pursue or challenge by way of an appeal with the Planning Inspectorate.
It further argued that:
The Agency is now at a point where it can no longer continue to respond to the Appellant’s request for information relating to the Spreadsheet. This is due to the unjustified level of disruption, irritation and distress it is causing staff particularly those individuals who are ultimately tasked with providing a response (to general correspondence, freedom of information requests, internal reviews, complaints and Subject Access Requests received from the Director of Homeseptic Ltd).