FT/EA/2025/0126 - [2025] UKFTT 01344 (GRC)

The Appeal

Mr Owen appealed the Decision Notice to the Tribunal on 25 March 2025. He summarised his reasons for the appeal as follows:

“The reasons given by the Council for refusing my request were firstly that the information was not held and then on appeal because “the number of questions and departments involved in your request would cause the council undue stress and be a burden on our time and resources”. The Commissioner did not consider this latter rationale as the basis for the decision to reject my complaint but instead based the decision on new information and arguments made by the Council which I was not aware of or given the opportunity to comment or present evidence on. The process by which the Commissioner reached the decision was therefore one-sided and unfair to me as complainant. It also meant the Commissioner did not reach a decision based on evidence and arguments from both parties.”

“In the alternative, if the Tribunal considers that the Commissioner was correct to base the decision on the new information and arguments made by the Council…

The decision incorrectly takes into account information and events after the cut-off date (7 May 2024) specified in ICO guidance…

The Commissioner says the request was made in the context of “long running correspondence (including eight information requests between 2023 and present) by the complainant in respect of the matter”. The Commissioner appears to have only considered the number of communications and FOIA/EIR requests and has not taken into account the timing, nature, reason for and context of my communications with the Council. The context shows that the contacts were reasonable and justified and should not be used as a reason for considering my request to be vexatious…

The Council has not sought to demonstrate transparency about this matter...

This matter has not been “extensively considered by the proper authorities. The Planning Inspectorate did not consider the matter of the private meeting. There has been no decision in a judicial review that the Council acted lawfully in the planning process. The Commissioner was therefore incorrect to give weight to these factors in the decision…

Complying with the request will not cause a disproportionate or unjustified level of disruption, irritation or distress…

This information request does not relate to a matter which is “closed” and the FOIA/EIR are not therefore being used to force “continued engagement by the Council on a closed matter”. I am not seeking to try to overturn a planning decision. Instead I am trying to obtain information regarding the way an aspect of the planning process was conducted and to provide transparency over the decision made to approve the Rose Hill application. My request has value and a serious purpose as there remains a strong public interest in obtaining transparency regarding the private meeting so the public can understand the Council’s decision making process and see that the planning committee acted openly and fairly in making its decision (especially in this case where the Council had a financial interest in the application being approved). Disclosure of the information requested would therefore deliver a clear public benefit.”

Mr Owen expands further on these points in detail in his grounds of appeal. He concludes that there is an equal or greater public interest in the request being complied with and that the IC was incorrect to consider that his request was vexatious.