Tribunal Rules in Favor of Disclosure of Disused Coal Tips Location Data Under Environmental Information Regulations

Citation: [2024] UKFTT 27 (GRC)
Judgment on

Introduction

The Rhondda Cynon Taff County Borough Council v The Information Commissioner case (Case Reference: EA/2023/0037) discusses essential legal aspects surrounding the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR) and the disclosure of environmental information, in this instance pertaining to the location of disused coal tips. The case provides valuable insights into the application of EIR, specifically regulation 12(4)(d) on incomplete information and regulation 13 on personal data, alongside the balancing of public interests at the time of a request against future publication.

Key Facts

The case concentrates on Respondent Rhondda Cynon Taff County Borough Council’s (the Council) appeal against the Information Commissioner’s decision requiring the Council to disclose information about the location and risk categorisation of disused coal tips under EIR. The appeal primarily challenges the Commissioner’s decision on the grounds of public interest and personal data protection.

Key elements of the case involve:

  • The safety management of coal tips, particularly in light of the Aberfan disaster and more recent Tylorstown landslip.
  • Data collection and verification processes led by Welsh Government’s initiatives to ensure safer management of coal tips.
  • A request for detailed coal tip data within Rhondda Cynon Taff, which the Council refused citing EIR exceptions.

The tribunal evaluated several principles throughout its analysis:

  1. Regulation 12(4)(d) EIR: Asserts that public authorities may withhold environmental information if it’s in the course of completion. The decision must involve a test of public interest which favors disclosing or keeping the information private.

  2. Public Interest Test: When considering regulation 12(4)(d), there is a presumption in favor of disclosure. The tribunal assessed if the expectation of future publication (> Montague and Ofqual rulings) impacted the public interest balance at the time of the request.

  3. Regulation 13 EIR: Covers the non-disclosure of third-party personal data subject to data protection principles. The disclosure under EIR should not contravene these principles.

  4. Data Protection Principles: Evaluate whether disclosing information under EIR is lawful, fair, respects purpose limitation, data minimisation, and ensures accuracy of personal data.

  5. Legitimate Interests under UKGDPR: Requires a balance between legitimate interests pursued by the data controller or third party against the individual’s interests or fundamental rights.

  6. Discretion of the Tribunal: As per Gaskell, the tribunal contemplated whether to exercise discretion not to order the communication of information following a change in the public interest balance due to subsequent data release.

Outcomes

The tribunal concluded several crucial points:

  • Regulation 12(4)(d) EIR: The tribunal found a strong public interest in disclosing the information which outweighs the interest in withholding it. Specifically, public safety concerns and accountability significantly favored disclosure despite the risk of misleading or creating confusion.

  • Regulation 13 EIR: It was determined that the exception concerning personal data did not apply. The public’s legitimate interest in accessing the coal tip data was deemed necessary, and not overridden by data subjects’ rights.

  • Exercise of Discretion: The tribunal opted against using its discretion to withhold the information, even considering that more current information had been publicly released by the time of the tribunal’s decision.

Conclusion

The First-tier Tribunal’s decision in this case highlights the intricate balance between the need for public access to environmental information about potential safety hazards and the protection of personal data. Despite the ongoing verification of collected data, the tribunal placed significant weight on public interest in safety and transparency over concerns of potential misinformation or burdens on the Council. It emphasized the public’s right to be informed and the importance of this information for local residents to make decisions about their safety and property interests. The case reiterates the presumption in favor of disclosure under EIR and provides a clear example of how data expected to be published imminently should be handled within the context of a public interest test.