Oxford City Council
- Date 6 February 2017
- Sector Local government
- Decision(s) EIR 11: Upheld, EIR 5.1: Partly upheld, EIR 5.2: Upheld
The complainant made a five-part request for information from Oxford City Council (the ‘Council’) about a draft Waterways Public Space Protection Order (‘PSPO’) .The Council provided the information in relation to part 5 of the request but refused to provide the remainder by virtue of section 21 of FOIA (information accessible to applicant by other means). Following an internal review the Council maintained its position but concluded that the request should instead have been handled in accordance with the EIR. During the Commissioner’s investigation, the Council partly revised its position and said that no information is held in relation to parts 3 and 4 of the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information constitutes environmental information and therefore falls under the EIR. She has concluded that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council has provided all the information it holds in accordance with regulation 5(1) of the EIR for parts 1 and 2, this being available on its website. The Commissioner also finds that, again on the balance of probabilities, the Council holds no information in relation to parts 3 and 4 of this request. However, following clarification in relation to part 5 of the request, the Commissioner finds that the Council has not considered the names of all those concerned. She therefore requires the Council either to provide the names of all those who were involved in the development of the draft PSPO or to issue a valid refusal notice in accordance with the EIR. The Council must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court. In addition, by failing to provide its response within the statutory 20 working days’ time frame the Council breached EIR regulation 5(2). It also breached regulation 11 of the EIR by failing to conduct an internal review within the statutory timescale.