FT/EA/2025/0126 - [2025] UKFTT 01344 (GRC)
Fecha: 17-Nov-2025
Heading

Case Reference: FT/EA/2025/0126
Information Rights
Decided without a hearing
Before
JUDGE HARRIS
MEMBER SCOTT
MEMBER SIVERS
Between
CHRISTOPHER OWEN
Appellant
and
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
Respondent
Decision: The appeal is Allowed.
Substituted Decision Notice: IC-330458-L9L1
Organisation: Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council
Complainant: Christopher Owen
1. For the reasons set out below the public authority is not entitled to rely on section 14 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (“FOIA”) to refuse the complainant’s requests and, where the requests seek environmental information, the public authority is not entitled to rely upon regulation 12(4)(b) (manifestly unreasonable requests) of the Environmental Regulations 2004 (“EIR”)..
2. The public authority must respond to the request for information within 35 days of the promulgation of this decision stating whether it holds the requested information and must either supply the information sought or claim any relevant exemptions or exceptions, including the grounds it relies on other than section 14(1) and, in so far as the information is environmental information, the grounds it relies on other than Regulation 12(4)(b).
Directions
The Information Commissioner is directed to send a copy of this decision to Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council within 14 days of its promulgation
REASONS
This appeal concerns a Decision Notice of the Information Commissioner (“the IC”) dated 27 February 2025, reference IC-330458-L9L1 (the “Decision Notice”). The Decision Notice was in connection with a request for information made by the Appellant, Mr Christopher Owen, to Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council (“the Council”) concerning a meeting of its Planning Committee about a development at Rose Hill Rise in Doncaster.
Mr Owen wrote to the Council on 23 April 2024 to request the following information:
“Request 1
With regard to the Planning Committee Meeting on 14 November 2023,who within CDC decided that a private meeting was necessary and asked for it to be arranged? Please provide any emails or other documents relating to this decision, the matters to be discussed and who should attend.
Request 2
In response to the previous FOI/EIR request, it was stated that no minutes of the private meeting were taken and there are no supporting notices, documents or other papers referred to or viewed by any attendees at the meeting.
In the apparent absence of formal minutes, notes or documentation of the meeting, please can you state:
who chaired the meeting;
which officers spoke or provided information at the meeting;
what was discussed at the meeting; and
what advice, guidance or instructions Members were given during the meeting.
Request 3
You state that [name redacted] was in attendance at the private meeting. Please can you explain:
why [name redacted] was in attendance, given that it does not appear he was in attendance during the public part of the Planning Committee Meeting; and
What role [name redacted] played in the private meeting. “
The Council responded on 7 May 2024. It stated that some of the information was already publicly available under section 21 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (“FOIA”), and that the remainder was not held. Following an internal review the Council wrote to the Mr Owen again on 1 August 2024. It revised its position and stated that it refused to comply with the request under section 14(1) of FOIA.
Mr Owen contacted the IC on 6 September 2024 to complain about the way his request for information had been handled.
On 27 February 2025, the IC issued the Decision Notice. In this he decided that Mr Owen’s request was vexatious and therefore the Council was entitled to rely upon section 14(1) of FOIA to refuse it, and that where the requests seek environmental information, the Council is entitled to rely upon regulation 12(4)(b) (manifestly unreasonable requests) of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (“EIR”).