Objectors' details on hard copy files - Public forum - Planning Advisory Service (PAS)
Open group
|
Started - July 2012
|
Last activity - This week
Objectors' details on hard copy files
An authority in the North of England is reviewing its procedures on how much information should be placed onto the hard copy public file re applications. In particular, they are unsure whether personal data etc. should be redacted from letters from (non-statutory) objectors (e.g. neighbours) before these are placed on the public file. The PARSOL guidance covers the position with online data. We’ve read this, the posting on this site from 2011 about details of objectors in committee reports, and ICO case reference FER0220492. We do “warn” objectors that their correspondence may be made public when we write to notify them of the development. We are now trying to gauge best practice so we can streamline our own procedures. Do other authorities allow open access to the hard copy planning file? If so, do they keep only redacted copies of objection letters on the hard copy file (e.g. email addresses and telephone numbers removed), or do they have two “versions” of objections (one for the internet and one for the public file)? -presumably the same data protection concerns apply if members of the public are free to view letters of objection on the hard copy planning application file.
I was vice chair of the PARSOL team who looked at this. In recent conversations with experts in FOI and access to information it was concluded that any document submitted to a local authority is subject to the FOI Acts and must be declared. When providing copies, even hard copies, the authority is advised to consider the Human Rights Act, and confidentiality of personal data. As such, if giving paper copies of neighbour letters we would redact the email address, phone number and any signature. The address and name of the objector/supporter is material in the planning decision and should be visible. We advise members of the public that we do not consider anonymous comments and if they do not wish to put their name in the public arena they should approach their parish or ward councillor who can raise their concerns an their behalf. For my own authority, we do not keep hard copies of any correspondence. The public file is the website, and ALL neighbour letters are placed on the website, suitably redacted. All correspondence is hidden 6 months after the decision, or after an appeal decision which ever is later, so as to comply with the FOI Commissioner’s recommendations. I bang on about this, but to have multiple copies of letters and files is a recipe for disaster when it comes to the ombudsman. May I recommend that you have ONE location for this correspondence, and preferably make it electronic. You are going to have to scan it eventually for archive, and any good system (such as IDox) will have redaction facilities so that the case officer can see personal details (so they can be re-consulted, contacted) and a redacted copy for the public. If people come in and want to see them, show them to a screen in the reception area and show them the redacted version. I hope this is helpful. Phill
Also be aware that some PDF redactions MUST make it into the public facing paper file too. For example possibly defamatory or libellous objections, or details relating to say firearms storgae, explosives storage or security systems should be redacted appropriately. Original copies of possibly defamatory or libellous objections should also be securely held in case related legal action is ever initiated. I was once in a huge US law case where I and several others were witnesses. Luckily I have a policy of NEVER deleting emails .. but others were more cavalier. The lawyers had a field day implying lack of integrity ... and worse ... with respect to the 'deleters'. So ... keep all the pre-redaction originals in a dusty storeroom somewhere!