FS50217563: Difference between revisions
From FOIwiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Alex skene (talk | contribs) CSV import |
Alex skene (talk | contribs) m Text replace - "DNDecision1" to "DNDecision" |
||
| (5 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{DNSummaryBox | {{DNSummaryBox | ||
|dn_ref=FS50217563 | |dn_ref=FS50217563 | ||
|dn_date=14 | |dn_date=14 December 2009 | ||
|dn_pa=Kent County Council | |dn_pa=Kent County Council | ||
|dn_summary=The complainant requested information from the council in relation to the proposals for a lorry park to deal with the impact of | |dn_summary=The complainant requested information from the council in relation to the proposals for a lorry park to deal with the impact of “Operation Stack”. The council identified 15 documents falling within the scope of the request and disclosed these to the complainant. However it redacted information from two of the documents under regulation 12(4)(e) and 12(5)(e). The Commissioner has investigated and found that regulation 12(5)(e) is not engaged and that although regulation 12(4)(e) is engaged the public interest in maintaining the exception is not outweighed by the public interest in disclosure of the requested information. | ||
|dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2010/fs_50217563.pdf | |dn_url=http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2010/fs_50217563.pdf | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{DNDecision | {{DNDecision | ||
|1=EIR 12(5)(e) | |dnd_section=EIR 5(1) | ||
| | |dnd_finding=Upheld | ||
}} | |||
{{DNDecision | |||
|dnd_section=EIR 5(2) | |||
|dnd_finding=Upheld | |||
}} | |||
{{DNDecision | |||
|dnd_section=EIR 12(4)(e) | |||
|dnd_finding=Upheld | |||
}} | |||
{{DNDecision | |||
|dnd_section=EIR 12(5)(e) | |||
|dnd_finding=Upheld | |||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 22:39, 15 May 2010
Decision Summary
- Case Ref: FS50217563
- Date: 14 December 2009
- Public Authority: Kent County Council
- Summary: The complainant requested information from the council in relation to the proposals for a lorry park to deal with the impact of “Operation Stack”. The council identified 15 documents falling within the scope of the request and disclosed these to the complainant. However it redacted information from two of the documents under regulation 12(4)(e) and 12(5)(e). The Commissioner has investigated and found that regulation 12(5)(e) is not engaged and that although regulation 12(4)(e) is engaged the public interest in maintaining the exception is not outweighed by the public interest in disclosure of the requested information.
- View PDF of Decision Notice: [1]
- Section of Act / Finding: EIR 5(1) - Complaint Upheld - Find other matching decisions
- Section of Act / Finding: EIR 5(2) - Complaint Upheld - Find other matching decisions
- Section of Act / Finding: EIR 12(4)(e) - Complaint Upheld - Find other matching decisions
- Section of Act / Finding: EIR 12(5)(e) - Complaint Upheld - Find other matching decisions
