LANDFILL OPERATOR’S INFORMATION NEITHER CONFIDENTIAL NOR COMMERCIALLY SENSITIVE

April 29th, 2012 by Robin Hopkins

First-Tier Tribunal caselaw this past week has focused on the intersection between the common law of confidence and statutory rights of access to information. Moss v IC & Home Office (EA/2011/0081) (see Anya’s post here), the Tribunal analysed section 41(2) of FOIA (information provided in confidence). Shortly thereafter, the Tribunal handed down its decision in Rory Jones (on behalf of Swansea Friends of the Earth) v IC, The Environment Agency and SI Green Ltd (EA/2011/0156). This concerned the slightly different provision under regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR. Regulation 12(5)(e) EIR provides that “a public authority may refuse to disclose information to the extent that its disclosure would adversely affect… the confidentiality of commercial or industrial information where such confidentiality is provided by law to protect a legitimate economic interest”.

When a landfill operator such as SI Green (UK) Ltd (“Green”) obtains a permit from the Environment Agency (EA”) to operate a waste landfill, financial provision is made for covering the costs of something going wrong. Most commonly, this is done by means of a bond. In the event that any of the events specified by the bond occur, the amount secured by the bond is paid directly to the EA which can then use the funds to put matters right.

In this case, the appellant requested information relating to financial guarantee arrangements put in place by Green pursuant to its EA permit for operating a waste landfill site at Cwmrhydycierw Quarry near Swansea. The EA provided a redacted version of two documents, a performance agreement and the associated bond. It relied on regulation 12(5)(e) EIR in redacting information concerned with the amount of the bonded sum Green is required to secure for each year of operation of the landfill and going forward through a period of 60 years after operations terminate. It contended that this was commercially sensitive confidential information.

The Tribunal agreed with the Appellant that regulation 12(5)(e) was not engaged, because the redacted information was not subject to confidentiality provided by law. First, it was not provided by legislation. The Pollution Prevention and Control (England and Wales) Regulations 2000 enable landfill operators to apply for any information they provide to the EA to be excluded from the public register on the grounds that it is commercially confidential. In this case, Green had made such an application for different information to that redacted here.

Secondly, the information was not subject to common law confidentiality either. As in the Moss case, the Tribunal stuck to the 3-limb test laid down in Coco v AN Clark. In this case, the respondents’ case came unstuck on the second limb, which requires that the information must have been imparted in circumstances importing an obligation of confidence. In this respect, the Tribunal applied regulation 12(5)(e) in a very similar way to s. 41(2) of FOIA. It held that “that element [the second Coco limb] implies the communication of the information by one party to the other. The evidence in the present case, however, is that the information came into existence through a process of negotiation between the parties”. It added that “we recognise that section 41 refers more explicitly to information being “obtained” by the public authority from any other person. That is not the language of regulation 12(5)(e). However, we consider that the same element is imported by the incorporation of the common law test of breach of confidence into regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR.”

As the exception was not engaged, the public interest test was not necessary. Nevertheless, the Tribunal held that even if the exception had been engaged, the public interest favoured disclosure. The respondents’ cases were based largely on the assumption that the redacted information would reveal useful information about Green’s operating costs in relation to the landfill site in question. The Tribunal found that the evidence before it fell “far short” of supporting that assertion. On the other hand, the public interest in disclosure was made out: “the purpose of the bond is to provide the public with protection should things go seriously wrong. Disclosing the information would allow the public to understand the level of protection that is being provided to them and for them to feel confident that the provision is sufficient to deal with potential difficulties.”

Robin Hopkins

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on LANDFILL OPERATOR’S INFORMATION NEITHER CONFIDENTIAL NOR COMMERCIALLY SENSITIVE

INTERNAL FIXTURES ARE NOT ‘LANDSCAPE’

September 19th, 2011 by Rachel Kamm

The Tribunal, in Black v Information Commissioner (EA/2011/0064), has considered the definition of environmental information in the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (“the EIRs”). The heart of the definition is “information on the state of the elements of the environment, such as air and atmosphere, water, soil, land, landscape, and natural sites including wetlands, coastal and marine areas, biological diversity and its components, including genetically modified organisms, and the interaction among these elements”. 

It is of course important that public bodies spot when requested information falls within this definition, because any such request must be considered under the EIRs instead of the Freedom of Information 2000 (“FOIA”). It is fairly common for the requester and the public body to assume that a request has been made under FOIA, but to realise subsequently that the information should have been considered under the EIRs. The definition of environmental information is broad and sometimes surprises people by capturing information which does not appear to be environmental. For example, Robin Hopkins recently discussed on this blog how the “landscape” element of the definition has been interpreted broadly so as to include a monument. The Tribunal’s decision in Black is relatively unusual in that the appellant argued that all of the requested information fell within the EIRs, but the Tribunal rejected this submission. 

The appellant sought information on internal fixtures, such as fireplaces and chimney pieces, in English Heritage properties.  He relied on the Advocate General’s opinion in the case of Stichting Natuur en Milieu (Case C-266/09) to argue that buildings and structures were part of the landscape, which was not limited to the natural environmental. The appellant also argued that the EIRs had failed to properly implement the Directive. The Tribunal found that the opinion in Stichting Natuur en Milieu did not support the appellant’s submission and concluded that “On a plain reading of both the Directive and the EIR (which are identical in any event) the Tribunal finds that information relating to the internal fixtures of a building does not constitute “environmental information” within the definition, whether as landscape or otherwise”.   

Rachel Kamm

Tags: ,
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on INTERNAL FIXTURES ARE NOT ‘LANDSCAPE’

“ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION” INCLUDES NAMES OF OFFICIALS DRAWING UP MONUMENTS POLICY

May 25th, 2011 by Robin Hopkins

Omagh DC v IC (EA/2010/0163) is the newest decision on the scope of “environmental information” under the EIR. It is notable both for the broad interpretation it gives to the “landscape” element of that definition, and for the relevance the Tribunal ascribed to the purpose of the request.

The case concerned a memorial on Council-owned land commemorating IRA members who died during the hunger strikes of 1981. The Council undertook an Equality Impact Assessment on its policy on “Disposal of Land for the Purpose of Erecting or Retaining a Memorial or Monument”. The requester sought the names, departments and job titles of those Council officials responsible for that Assessment, as well as the Council’s letter to the Equality Commission.

The issue for the Tribunal was whether this should have been dealt with under FOIA or the EIR. The Council argued that the applicant’s queries were not about the environment, but about a process being used to inform a consultation on a Council decision. The Commissioner contended that the requested information was “environmental information” within the meaning of reg. 2(1)(c) EIR because the assessment was a “measure which is likely to affect the land and landscape”, and that details of those officials responsible for drafting the policy were not so far removed from this “measure” as not to have an effect on it.

The Tribunal has agreed with the Commissioner. It accepted that the Assessment could be fairly described as an investigative step prior to a potentially controversial final decision affecting or protecting the landscape, and also that the scope for “visual as opposed to cultural impact is capable of being regarded as minor” in this case. Nonetheless, it observed that under reg. 2(1)(i), the test is not only whether a measure affects or is likely to affect one of the listed elements but also whether a measure is “designed to protect” those elements; therefore, whether a change is likely is not determinative. The title of the Assessment implied a possible outcome preserving the status quo. The Tribunal was clear that:

“Only the connection with an impact on land or landscape links the concerns in this case into environmental rights. Had the memorial in question been inside a public building, the landscape context would have been absent but the cultural concerns would not have been different”.

Interestingly, although it recognised the “motive blind” principle, the Tribunal took the view that motive could be relevant not to the decision on whether or not to disclose the information (with which the Tribunal was not concerned) but to determining whether or not information is “environmental”:

“… both context and the motive of the requester are potentially relevant considerations. If the requester appeared to be wholly unconscious of an environmental aspect or import to his request, and stressed other reasons for his interest in the information, he could not be said to be denied environmental access rights if his request is not considered under EIR… If the Complainant had shown no evidence of concern about landscape impact, or if the allocation of the issue to one framework rather than the other could have led to a material difference in treatment of the substantive issue, these would have been relevant factors to take into account”.

Robin Hopkins

Tags: ,
Posted in INFORMATION LAW | Comments Off on “ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION” INCLUDES NAMES OF OFFICIALS DRAWING UP MONUMENTS POLICY

SOWING OF GM-CONTAMINATED SEEDS IS NOT AN ‘EMISSION’ FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE EIR

March 10th, 2011 by Anya Proops

Both the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR) and the Directive from which it derives (Directive 2003/4/EC) emphasise the importance of permitting the public access to information on ‘emissions’ – see further the fact that a number of the exceptions provided for in the EIR and the Directive are specifically disapplied in the case of emissions information (see r. 12(9) EIR and Art. 4(2) of the Directive). However, one question which is not always easy to answer in practice is what will constitute ‘an emission’ for the purposes of the legislation. In part, this difficulty arises because neither the EIR nor the Directive contains any definition of the word ‘emission’ (although the concept is examined in the Implementation Guide to the Aarhus Convention, which the Directive was itself designed to implement). The question of what will constitute an ‘emission’ for the purposes of the EIR and the Directive was considered for the first time by the Information Tribunal in the case of GM Freeze v IC & DEFRA (EA/2010/0112). In that case, the First Tier Tribunal held (obiter) that the word ‘emission’ did not include the deliberate sowing of genetically-modified seed. The Tribunal’s decision is also worth considering in view of the analysis it contains on the application of the personal data exception provided for in r. 13 EIR.

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on SOWING OF GM-CONTAMINATED SEEDS IS NOT AN ‘EMISSION’ FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE EIR

LATEST DECISION NOTICE ON “EMISSIONS”

February 28th, 2011 by Robin Hopkins

At the 11KBW Information Law seminar last week, I mentioned the imminent Tribunal decision in the GM Freeze case, which will consider how the term “emissions” is to be construed for EIR purposes. On a related note, readers may be interested to know that the ICO last week issued a decision notice requiring Ofcom to disclose information about electromagnetic radiation from ethernet power line adaptors, on the grounds that this fell within the definition of “information on emissions” under the EIR. Read the DN here.

Tags:
Posted in INFORMATION LAW | Comments Off on LATEST DECISION NOTICE ON “EMISSIONS”

PAYMENTS TO SENIOR PUBLIC SECTOR EMPLOYEES: ROUNDUP OF RECENT PERSONAL DATA CASES

February 22nd, 2011 by Robin Hopkins

The FOIA update paper given at last week’s 11KBW Information Law Seminar provides a roundup of recent caselaw in a few of the most common areas of Tribunal litigation.

One is commercially sensitive or confidential information: in particular, Veolia and its aftermath.

Another is information on planning applications and property developments: in particular, those cases subsequent to South Gloucestershire, namely Bristol City, Bath & North East Somerset and Elmbridge.

A third area is personal data: here the recent cases of Dun, Bryce, Ferguson and Ince have all – like the cases mentioned above – been covered in Panopticon posts. Two others to take note of, however, both in the context of public sector pay (other than salaries).

One concerns bonus payments to public sector employees. Davis v IC and Olympic Delivery Authority (EA/2010/0024) saw the Tribunal distinguish between bonus information and performance assessment information. It ordered disclosure of certain information relating to the bonuses of senior employees of the ODA: the maximum performance-related bonuses to which the chief executive and communications director were contractually entitled, and the percentage of the maximum available bonus actually paid to certain other members of senior management. The Tribunal decided, however, that details of the performance targets which individuals failed to hit to 100% satisfaction should not be disclosed.

The other recent case on the personal data exemption is Pycroft v IC and Stroud District Council (EA/2010/0165). The context was an auditor’s report which observed that the local authority’s former Strategic Director of Housing “did not ensure that staff had taken ownership of managing the budgets”. The applicant requested the details of this Director’s early retirement package. The Commissioner found that disclosure of this information would not be fair, and the Tribunal agreed. It should be noted by those dealing with requests for information about payments to allegedly poorly-performing public sector employees.

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in INFORMATION LAW | Comments Off on PAYMENTS TO SENIOR PUBLIC SECTOR EMPLOYEES: ROUNDUP OF RECENT PERSONAL DATA CASES

TRIBUNAL ORDERS DISCLOSURE OF VIABILITY REPORT FROM HAMPTON COURT PLANNING APPLICATION

January 7th, 2011 by Robin Hopkins

Elmbridge Borough Council v IC (Additional Party: Gladedale Group Limited) (EA/2010/0106) is the latest Tribunal decision concerning requests for information about planning applications (see my posts on other such cases here and here, and Anya’s post on an earlier important planning case here). In particular, the disputed information here comprised a viability report containing details on costs, revenues, values and finances of a development in the vicinity of Hampton Court. The Council pleaded commercial confidentiality and sought to rely on regulations 12(5)(e) and 12(5)(f) EIR. The Commissioner found that these exemptions were not engaged. The Tribunal agreed, and ordered disclosure.

In so doing, the Tribunal confirmed that the confidentiality of this information must be objectively required at the time of the request (rather than, for example, when the information was created or passed to the Council) in order to protect a relevant interest. The Tribunal also confirmed that it is not enough that some harm might be caused by disclosure, but that it is necessary to establish (on the balance of probabilities) that some harm to the economic interest would be caused by disclosure.

A crucial feature of this case was the lack of evidence offered to demonstrate commercial confidentiality or prejudice. The Tribunal observed that:

“Throughout the investigation and consideration of the issues leading to the Decision, the Respondent consistently and repeatedly sought evidence from the Appellant to support their contention that the subject information was commercially sensitive or that its release would be prejudicial to the third parties concerned. It is noted by this Tribunal that the information made available to the respondent amounts to assertions and speculation by the interested parties. There is a notable absence of independent or objective evidence to support the assertions or speculation put before the Respondent.” 

Tags: , , ,
Posted in INFORMATION LAW | Comments Off on TRIBUNAL ORDERS DISCLOSURE OF VIABILITY REPORT FROM HAMPTON COURT PLANNING APPLICATION

“MANIFESTLY UNREASONABLE” REQUESTS UNDER THE EIR: RELEVANCE OF COST OF COMPLIANCE AND DUTY TO ADVISE AND ASSIST

January 3rd, 2011 by Robin Hopkins

Little v ICO and Welsh Assembly Government (EA/2010/0072) is the latest application of the principles in DBERR v IC and Platform (EA/2008/0096) concerning “manifestly unreasonable” requests under regulation 12(4)(b) EIR. In particular, it deals with a public authority’s reliance on that exemption based on the excessive time which would be required to comply with the request.

The Tribunal confirmed that manifest unreasonableness – whilst not a condemnatory term – did imply a higher threshold than mere unreasonableness. A certain obviousness was required. Beyond that, no more precise definition could be given, and terms such as “self-evidently” were not applicable. The cost of compliance is relevant, but only as one factor among many. A request may be manifestly unreasonable if the cost of compliance is disproportionate the importance of the issue, or if compliance would divert resources so as significantly to disrupt the public authority’s normal activities. These, however, are only examples, and each case must be decided on its own facts. On the facts of this case (which concerned information on the disposal of land owned by Forestry Commission Wales for the purposes of wind farm development) the requests were manifestly unreasonable.

Two points of general interest emerge.

First, the “cost of compliance” provision under section 12 FOIA may not be used as a yardstick for determining manifest unreasonableness under regulation 12(4) EIR. The provisions are entirely separate, and one offers no guidance on the other.

The second is that compliance with the duty to advise and assist under regulation 9 EIR is a precondition for reliance on regulation 12(4)(c) (the exemption applicable where a request is too general) – but not for reliance on manifest unreasonableness under regulation 12(4)(b). This does not mean, however, that the duty to advise and assist is irrelevant to regulation 12(4)(b). The Tribunal was clear that “a public authority should expect, in the appropriate case, to have to engage with the request, and the requester, to consider whether a more manageable and reasonable formulation of the request can be achieved, before refusing a request for being manifestly unreasonable”.

The Tribunal also observed that the preparation of a 20-page list of files which might contain the requested information was not required under regulation 9 in this case – but once such a list has been prepared, the failure to provide the requester with a copy might cast a public authority’s efforts under regulation 9 in an unfavourable light.

Tags: , ,
Posted in INFORMATION LAW | Comments Off on “MANIFESTLY UNREASONABLE” REQUESTS UNDER THE EIR: RELEVANCE OF COST OF COMPLIANCE AND DUTY TO ADVISE AND ASSIST

COUNCIL ENTITLED TO WITHHOLD PROPERTY DEVELOPER’S FINANCIAL MODEL: BRISTOL CITY DISTINGUISHED

October 6th, 2010 by Robin Hopkins

Bath & North East Somerset Council v IC (EA/2010/0045) is the latest application of the ‘commercial confidentiality’ exemption under regulation 12(5)(e) EIR to a request for information on agreements between a local authority and a property developer.

 

The council and the developer entered into discussions about building homes on 70 acres of brownfield land within a UNESCO World Heritage Site. Only a small proportion of this land was owned by the council, the rest being owned by the developer, who would also bear 100% of the risk of the project. The proposed £500m project would deliver 50% of the council’s new homes target for the next 10 years – the council was therefore acting as both beneficiary and planning authority.

 

With a potential section 106 agreement in mind, the council and developer reached a co-operation agreement, whereby the developer taking an ‘open book’ approach, i.e. making its financial models and reports available to the council. This was the information at issue before the Tribunal.

 

The Tribunal found that the public interest favoured maintaining the exemption. In so doing, it distinguished this case from Bristol City Council v ICO and Portland and Brunswick Squares Association (EA/2010/0012) – on which, see my post here and article in the Local Government Lawyer here – where disclosure of the information was ordered. Bristol City concerned a viability assessment designed to show that a hypothetical scheme was not viable; that assessment used generic, industry-level pricing. In contrast, this case concerned detailed and developer-specific financial information about an actual proposal. The commercial sensitivities differed materially.

 

Disclosure of such information, held the Tribunal, would lead to the developer refusing to provide any further ‘open book’ information, which would stymie this particular development and dissuade developers from future ‘open book’ co-operation. The Tribunal was also impressed by the availability of alternative scrutiny mechanisms in this case. It was less impressed with the council’s argument that disclosure of the disputed information would damage its reputation with developers.

 

The Tribunal did order the disclosure of consultants’ reports and emails, with commercially sensitive information redacted. The developer’s financial model however, could not be redacted, and could be withheld. On this last point, a notable practical issue emerged: both the council and the Commissioner had interpreted the request as being for a static version of the developer’s financial model. A ‘live’ model – i.e. a spreadsheet containing visible formulae – is another matter. The Tribunal warned that in future cases, clarification should be sought from the requester.

Tags: , , ,
Posted in INFORMATION LAW | Comments Off on COUNCIL ENTITLED TO WITHHOLD PROPERTY DEVELOPER’S FINANCIAL MODEL: BRISTOL CITY DISTINGUISHED

PLANNING DECISIONS & HISTORIC BUILDINGS: PUBLIC SCRUTINY TRUMPS COMMERCIAL CONFIDENTIALITY

May 28th, 2010 by Robin Hopkins

Local planning authorities will wish to take careful note of the recent Tribunal decision in Bristol City Council v ICO and Portland and Brunswick Squares Association (EA/2010/0012), which will please residents’ associations, conservation groups and others wishing to scrutinise planning decisions about historic buildings.

 

PPG 15 (a Planning Policy Guidance document) requires that, where a building is listed or makes a positive contribution to a conservation area, it should only be demolished if there is “clear and convincing evidence that all reasonable efforts have been made to sustain existing uses or find viable new uses and these efforts have failed”. Bristol CC granted permission to demolish a listed building in its ownership, relying for PPG 15 purposes on the developer’s viability reports which apparently showed alternative uses of the building to be commercially unviable. It subsequently refused to disclose those reports, relying on the exemption at regulation 12(5)(e) of the EIR 2004, which applies to the extent that disclosure “would adversely affect … the confidentiality of commercial or industrial information where such confidentiality is provided by law to protect a legitimate economic interest”.

 

The requesters argued that a reasonable person would not regard these reports as confidential because the planning process is one that assumes and requires public involvement. The Tribunal disagreed, and found that regulation 12(5)(e) was engaged.

 

It went on to find, however, that the public interest favoured disclosure, given the decisiveness of these reports in a matter which had aroused substantial local controversy. The Tribunal considered it proper to take into account the “general mismatch between the resources of developers and residents’ groups” and noted that “so far as PPG 15 viability reports are concerned, it seems to us that developers will not be able to refuse to supply them if they want to obtain the relevant consent but that, given their hypothetical nature, it may be possible for them to construct such reports in a way that does not reveal sensitive commercial information specific to themselves”.

 

The Tribunal stressed that it was not setting down a general precedent concerning planning decisions, and that absent PPG 15 (or, presumably, its successor guidance PPS 5) or council ownership of the building in question, its decision might have been different. Where those two factors are present however, public accountability trumps commercial confidentiality.

Tags: , ,
Posted in INFORMATION LAW | Comments Off on PLANNING DECISIONS & HISTORIC BUILDINGS: PUBLIC SCRUTINY TRUMPS COMMERCIAL CONFIDENTIALITY

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »