Request reference: FOI 10988

Issue dates: 19.12.25 and 07.01.26

Request received: 

The applicant requested details of the software applications used across departments at the authority, providing the following details for each department:

1. Name of each software application currently in use

2. Whether the application is installed locally on devices, hosted on a Virtual Desktop, or virtual app basis (Citrix or Azure VDI, or similar) or hosted by the developer (cloud-based/SaaS)

3. Current version number of each application

4. Number of licences held for each application

5. Contract type: whether the contract is rolling or fixed-term

6. Annual cost of each application

The departments to include (but not limited to):

o          Planning and Building Control

o          Council Tax

o          Bins, Rubbish and Recycling

o          Housing

o          Parking, Streets and Transport

o          Benefits and Grants

o          Business Support

o          Environmental Health

o          Anti-social Behaviour and Crime

o          Health, Sport and Fitness

o          Elections and Councillors

o          Climate Change Strategy

o          Events and Community Engagement

o          Job Vacancies and HR

o          Apprenticeships and People Strategy

o          Finance and Audit

o          Assets and Business Development

o          Transformation and Communities

o          Culture, Health, Town Centre and Rural Services

o          Streetscene Services

o          ICT Shared Services

o          Revenues and Benefits Partnership

Response provided:

Planning:

1. DEF

2. On premises

3. Version 03.0824

4. 39 active user licences

5. Fixed

6. £49,000   

 

Building Control:

1. Idox (software is run on Mid Devon District Council ICT Hardware as the service operates jointly between the two authorities)

2. This is not held, please contact Mid Devon District Council for this information

3. As 2 above

4. As 2 above

5. As 2 above

6. As 5 above

 

Bins Rubbish, Recycling:

1. Bartec Municipal/ Collective Bartec

2. Mixture of desktop, cloud and apps on mobile devices

3. 25

4. 59

5. Fixed Term - 16/11/2027 (4 years 0 Months contract)

6. Vehicle Professional subscription £360 Per License, Collective data plan (including SIM) £240 each. Total year cost £49,300

 

1. Vision Techniques

2. Cloud (cameras fitted in vehicles) Relay via VT to Bartec (SIM Based)

3. N/A

4. 33

5. Rolling 12 month

6. £15 p/m/vehicle

 

1. WeighTron

2. Desktop

3.  4.3.3.7647

4. 1

5. Rolling contract

6. £2,084.00 annually, support £5,269.10 annually

 

Housing (included within Environmental Health below)

 

Parking, Streets, Transport:

1. Imperial – Civil Enforcement Solutions

2. Both

3. Version 5.17

4. 29

5. Fixed

6. £16,869

 

Grants – No software used

 

Business Support:

1. Monday.com

2. Cloud based

3. N/A

4. 50 Licences

5. Fixed Term 

6. £28,800

 

1. Pentana Live

2 Cloud & Pentana Classic Hosted

3. S:2025-11-08T07:18:31.809Z

4. Unlimited

5. Rolling

6. £5,894.00

 

1. Engage Process

2. Cloud based

3. N/A

4. 10 Modeler licences, 25 Viewer and Teamboard licences

5. Rolling

6. £8,350.00

 

Environmental Health, Housing, Anti-social behaviour and Crime:

1. NEC Assure public protection

2. Local

3. 25.2

4. Site licence

5. Rolling

6. £21,000

 

1. Idox Lalpac Licensing (S and M ends 26.11.26 and won’t be renewed)

2. Local

3.4.20.0.0

4. Site licence

5. Rolling 

6. No further S and M as ending use of

 

1. Rocktime Verso HMO and Licensing

2. Hosted

3. Core V10.4.2509.10575 Build:10575, Verso Core V4.4.2509.12289 Build:12289, NorthDevonCouncil Licensing V1.0.2509.556 Build:556, Verso API V4.4.2509.12289 Build:12289

4. Site licence 

5. G-CLOUD four-year licence

6. £19,000

 

1. Safety Culture - mobile forms

2. Hosted

3. 25.46.01

4. Eight seats

5. Three-year agreement

6. £1,920

 

Health Sport and Fitness: No software applications used

 

Elections: 

1. Civica - Xpress

2. Installed locally

3.  3.16.4

4. Approximately 38 users

5. Rolling 

6. £21,500

 

Member Services:

1. Modern Gov (Civica)

2. Both

3.1506.6

4. One licence

5. Fixed

6. £13,508

 

Climate Change Strategy:  No software applications used

 

Events and Community Engagement:

1. Granicus Community Engagement

2. Cloud based

3. Unknown

4. One licence

5. Fixed 

6. £12,800

 

Job Vacancies and HR:

1. iTrent

2. Browser, hosted

3. Currently 10.56.01, however an upgrade to 10.58 will commence 29.01.26

4. Maximum of 500 employees

5. Fixed

6. £59,859.53

 

Apprenticeships and People Strategy: No software applications used

 

Finance and Audit: 

1. Civica Financials (Civica)

2. Both

3. V24

4. Site licence

5. Fixed

6. £265,562

 

Assets and Business development:

1. Civica Property Management 

2. Browser

3. Hosted/Cloud

4. Unknown

5. Fixed

6. £14,573

 

Transformation and Communities: N/A

 

Culture, Health, Town Centre and Rural Services: N/A

 

Streetscene Services:

1. Mycelia – Play inspections

2. Cloud based

3. 3.0.14

4. Five

5. Fixed

6. £4,115

 

1. Verna Mycelia

2. Could based

3. About Mycelia – Verna

4. One

5. Fixed term

6. £10,000

 

ICT Shared services: N/A

 

Revenues and Benefits Partnership:

1.OPENRevenues

2. Locally on a virtual desktop

3. 25.2.03

4. 70

5. Fixed term

6. £150,694.44

 

1. Digital 360

2. Locally on a virtual desktop

3. 31

4. 66

5. Fixed term

6. £26,349.75

 

Request reference: FOI 10996

Issue date: 05.01.26

Request received: 

The applicant requested the following information for each of the past three financial years (2023–24, 2024–25 and 2025-26 to date):

1. The number of applications submitted to discharge any of the following types of planning conditions attached to residential developments involving new-build dwellings:

o          Pre-commencement conditions

o          Pre-slab / pre-foundation conditions

o          Above-ground conditions (i e conditions that must be discharged before development can progress above ground floor level)

2. For each of the categories listed above, the number of discharge applications determined within the statutory 8-week period

3. For each of the categories listed above, the average, minimum, and maximum determination times (in calendar days) for discharge-of-condition applications

Response provided:

The applicant was advised that the information can all be found via the Council’s Planning Tracker

Via the link above, the applicant was informed that they will be able to search for all discharge of condition applications via the application Type filter for each of the requested years. However, the tracker does not allow filtering of the following fields:

• New build developments

• Pre commencement conditions

• Pre slab/pre foundation conditions

• Above ground conditions

In order to identify this information, the applicant will need to go into each applicable application file (as published) for the requested financial years find the remaining information to identify which of these relate specifically to new builds and which fall into the categories listed above. The Planning department confirms that they do not hold any associated information separately that is not already published that would prevent the applicant being able to fully answer the request and that everything required is available via the Planning Tracker

In accordance with Section 21(1) of the Act, the Council is not obliged to provide information that is already in the public domain. However, it does have a duty under Section 16(1) to provide all applicants advice and assistance in order to assist with locating the information. In this instance, the Council has met this obligation by providing the applicant with the link to the Planning Tracker and the further information as set out above  

Request reference: FOI 11006

Issue date: 02.01.26

Request received: 

The applicant requested the following information/documents:

1. A copy of (or extract from) your current policy that governs user authentication for citizen-facing online services

2. The specific password rules that apply when citizens create an account or perform a password reset. For example, password character minimum and maximum limits, special character enforcement

3. Whether MFA is offered or required for citizen-facing services, and, if so, what types are supported (e g SMS, email, or authenticator app)

4. A brief description or document outlining how password resets or account recovery are handled for public users (e g email verification, security questions, or other processes)

5. The date these policies were last reviewed or updated, and whether the policies align with any national or international guidance (e g NCSC, NIST SP 800-63, or ISO 27001)

Response provided:

1. Applicant provided with the appropriate extract, as requested which is available upon request

2. 8-15 characters

    Uppercase, lowercase, number, and special character

    Password strength indicators will be provided during registration

3. Not currently offered but will be implemented as an offering, imminently

4. E-mail verification required

5. September 2025

Request reference: FOI 11011

Issue date: 13.01.26

Request received: 

The applicant requested a breakdown of costs incurred by the Council in relation to Planning Appeals for each financial year from 2010/11 to the current date in 2025. Specifically, they requested the data be provided in a table format containing the following two categories:

1. The total amount spent by the Council on legal fees, external consultants, and administrative costs for defending planning appeals

2. The total number of planning appeals defended by the Council (if an appeal crosses a financial year please include it in the same year as the costs were paid)

3. The total amount paid out to appellants (third parties) following a decision by the Planning Inspectorate that the Council acted "unreasonably" (Awards of Costs)

4. The total number of instances where costs were paid out to appellants (third parties) following a decision by the Planning Inspectorate that the Council acted "unreasonably" (Awards of Costs)

Response provided:

At the time of the response sent 13.01.26, the Planning department determined that they received a total of 671 appeals between 2010 and 2025. However, the Planning department confirmed that it is not possible to be able to easily provide this information broken down as per the request as it does not record the requested data in a way that it can easily be identified, nor does the Planning system software used have the capability to run a report that would easily extract and collate the requested information into a spreadsheet. The only way in which the Planning department would be able to provide the information, as per the request, would require an officer within the team to go manually through each of the 671 appeal files/records to identify, locate, retrieve the data, where recorded and then collate within a table

It is estimated that an officer within the Planning department would require a minimum of 15 minutes per appeal file; however, they also advise that for larger/complete appeals (where they have more than 50 documents to review) they estimate would likely be between 20 and 30 minutes per appeal file

Section 12 of the Act makes provision for public authorities to refuse requests for information where the cost of dealing with them would exceed the appropriate limit, which for Local Authorities is set at £450 by the Freedom of Information and Data Protection (Appropriate Limit and Fees) Regulations 2004. This represents the estimated cost of one person spending 18 hours at £25 per hour in determining whether the Council holds the information, locating, retrieving and collating the information

The task of manually providing the information as explained above would take in excess of 168 hours (this is based upon 15 minutes per appeal file/record) to complete and would cause a disproportionate diversion of the officer resource away from other matters and cause serious disruption to the day to day working of the Planning department; therefore the Council is unable to process your request any further in accordance with Section 12 of the Act

In accordance with Section 16 of the Act, the Council has considered where is any other way in which the request could be answered or refined in order to bring it under the 18 hour cost limit, however it has been unable to as the information is not recorded separately or in a way in which it is easily extractable from the Planning system using a report or search facility. The only way would be via a manual search as explained above which would thus far exceed the cost limit of 18 hours to complete and provide

Request reference: FOI 11013

Issue date: 08.01.26

Request received: 

For each financial year from 2018-19 to the most recent available at the point of production, the following:

1) a - tonnes of household recycling collected b - tonnes of collected household recycling rejected

c) - tonnes of collected household recycling rejected, split by how it was then processed (such as energy-from-waste / incineration, landfill)

 

2) a - tonnes of non-household recycling collected b - tonnes of non-household recycling rejected

c) - tonnes of non-household material rejected, split by how it was then processed (such as energy-from-waste / incineration, landfill)

3) a - tonnes of household recycling taken to recycling centres by the public b - tonnes of household recycling taken to recycling centres by the public that is rejected c - tonnes of household material taken to recycling centres by the public that is rejected, split by how it was then processed (such as energy-from-waste / incineration, landfill)

4) a - tonnage or percentage of material recycled within the UK b - tonnage or percentage of material exported overseas split by how it will be processed (such as recycled or incinerated) c - if available, please provide the tonnage or percentage of material exported overseas split by how it will be processed and destination country

If tonnes are not available, please provide percentages or other available measure. If the whole period requested is not available, please instead provide data from the earliest point available till the most recent at the point of production

Response provided:

1. a), b) This information is published via the https://www.wastedataflow.org/ website and so is already publicly available. As such, the Council is not required to provide this in accordance with Section 21 of the Act

c) 100% goes to energy from waste

2. a), b) As 1. a), b) above

c) 100% goes to energy from waste

3. The Council does not hold this information as recycling centres within the district fall under the remit of Devon County Council; therefore the applicant was directed to their Information Governance team

4. a) 100% recycling within the UK

    b) N/A

    c) N/A 

Request reference: FOI 11019

Issue date: 02.01.26

Request received: 

1. How much money received via Section 106 agreements is currently held, unspent, by the local planning authority? 

2. How much of this figure (Q1) is allocated for: 

a) affordable housing provision

b) highways/roads

c) schools and education contributions

d) open spaces (e g recreation, play areas, parks)

e) health and social care services

f) Biodiversity Net Gain monitoring 

g) other

3. Of the unspent Section 106 funds identified in Q1, how much was originally received: 

a) in the 2025/26 financial year

b) between the 2021/22 and 2024/25 financial years (inclusive)

c) in the 2020/21 financial year or earlier?

4. How much money received via Section 106 agreements has been returned to developers within the last ten years (2015/16 financial year onwards)? 

5. How many full-time equivalent (FTE) officers does the local authority employ whose role includes monitoring or managing developer contributions? 

6. For each year from 2020 onwards, did the council publish its Infrastructure Funding Statement before the statutory deadline? Please indicate yes/no for each year

Response provided:

Applicant provided with the Council’s response in Excel format, which is available upon request and directed to Devon County Council for information falling under 2 b), c) and e) 

Request reference: FOI 11021

Issue date: 16.01.26

Request received: 

The applicant requested the following information in relation to Land at Portmore Golf Club, Barnstaple, EX32 9LB:

1. Has the site been identified for inspection or further review under the Council's Contaminated Land Strategy (or other Part IIA undertaking)? If so, please describe the priority status/risk ranking of the site and the likely timescale for any further scrutiny of the site

2. Are there any known contamination issues associated with the site or in the near vicinity e.g. in terms of former or current contaminative site uses, leaks or spills of any oil/chemical substances etc.? If there have been any intrusive investigations at the site or near vicinity, please provide dates and titles of any reports and confirm whether the reports are publicly available

3. Please provide the following details of any current or former landfills located within a 250m radius of the site:

a) The location of all landfills, both closed and operational (i e National Grid Reference and location plan if available)

b) Dates when the landfill was operational

c) Types of waste deposited.

d) Any information on volume of waste deposited, depth of infilling and landfill structure

e) Details of any landfill gas monitoring, site investigation or gas spiking undertaken at the landfill or in the immediate vicinity of the site

4. Have elevated indoor radon gas concentrations been identified within buildings on or within 100m of the site? Have radon protection measures been required in buildings on site or within 100m? If so, please provide details

5. Are there any known current or former nuisance issues, prosecutions or enforcements associated with the site or adjoining properties, e g noise, odour or dust issues/complaints? If yes, what was the nature of the issue and what was the outcome? 

6. Are there any known private water supplies recorded on your Local Authority Private Water Supply Register, within 2km radius of the site? If yes what is the location (i.e. NGR), the source of abstraction and its purpose?

7. Please provide details of any Part A(2) or Part B Environmental Permits (formerly LAAPC/LAPPC authorisations) licensed to the site or to adjoining properties

Response provided:

Questions 1, 2, 3: 

Applicant provided with a map and spreadsheet (QGIS contaminated land report) which is available upon request

The EP team does not hold any other records regarding potentially contaminated land in this area. It is recommended that the applicant also contact the Environment Agency and Devon County Council regarding any information they may hold in relation to the site or the land in the vicinity

North Devon Council has not yet fully inspected its area to identify sites of contaminated land as required by Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. As such, it is not possible to say whether or not this site will be classified under this legislation. At this time, it is considered unlikely that this site would be the subject of inspection under this legislation to the future

Question 4: The Council does not hold this information

Question 5: None

Question 6: Records indicate that there are 17 private water supplies (PWS) within 2 Km of the site as highlighted by the applicant. Whilst the Council maintains a register of private water supplies, there is no requirement on owners to provide details and so records may not be comprehensive. Furthermore, the NGR location may refer to the property or source of abstraction

 

The details held are as follows:

Easting                       Northing          Source              Purpose

257154            130583            Borehole         Campsite

257923            130013            Spring              Rentals

259764            133353            Well                Holiday Accommodation

257055            131244            Borehole         Domestic Property

257911.2         130155.8         Borehole         Domestic Property

257957.7         130164.1         Borehole         Domestic Property

258598            132836            Borehole         Farm

256495            132840            Borehole         Non Domestic

257391            132243            Borehole         Non Domestic

259659            132291            Spring             Domestic Property

259072            130007            Well                Domestic Property

258176            133176            Well                Domestic Property

256768            129996            Well                Domestic Property

257273            133488            Well                Domestic Property

260023            133358            Multi Source   Dairying

257940            130133            Borehole         Multi Domestic Property

259508            133115            Well                Multi Domestic Property

Question 7: None

Request reference: FOI 11024

Issue date: 14.01.26

Request received: 

1. Use of Private Landlords

a. Does the council currently lease residential or commercial properties from private landlords or companies?

b. If yes, what property types are accepted (e g single lets, HMOs, flats, blocks, Bed and Breakfasts, hotels, conversions)?

c. Does the council accept properties outside its borough?

 

2. Lease Terms and Requirements

a. What are the standard lease terms (length, break clauses, renewal options)?

b. Does the council offer FRI leases or guaranteed rent?

c. What minimum standards/certifications are required (e g EPC, fire safety, HMO licensing)?

 

3. Rental Pricing

a. What rent levels does the council typically pay?

b. Please provide the typical ranges by property type

c. How are rents calculated (e g market comparison, internal formula, LHA rates)?

d. Are any incentives or refurbishment contributions offered?

 

4. Unit Requirements

a. What is the minimum number of units the council will consider (single units vs. multi-unit blocks)?

b. Are there preferred unit sizes (1–3 bed)?

 

5. Tenant Use and Support

a. What tenant groups are placed in leased properties (e g homeless households, temporary accommodation, care leavers, asylum seekers)?

b. Does the council provide any support or management services within these placements?

 

6. Current Demand and Process

a. Is the council currently seeking new landlords or property providers?

b. Which property types are most needed?

c. What is the onboarding/procurement process?

d. Please provide any available guidance or standard agreements

 

7. Current Portfolio

a. How many properties does the council currently lease from private landlords?

b. Please provide a breakdown by property type

c. What is the average occupancy rate?

8. Contact Details

a. Please provide the relevant department/officer responsible for private sector leasing or temporary accommodation procurement, with email and phone contact

Response provided:

1. a) Yes 

    b) Flats, blocks, adhoc Bed and Breakfast/hotel use

    c) No

 

2. a) No standard terms, these var from annual lease up to 10-year leases

    b) Varies

    c) All legislative items in place to meet rental standards

 

3. a) Varies, market rates generally

    b) Block of seven flats and three-bedroom house £77.5k pa

        Block of eight one-bedroom flats £44.5k pa

   c) Market comparison and LHA rates

   d) No

 

4. a) Currently multiple units (flats)

    b) One-bedroom

 

5. a) All as listed 

    b) Yes, basic support from temporary accommodation team and maintenance of property/white goods/furniture by Council’s Property team

 

6. a) Not actively, however there is a need for one-bedroom properties

    b) One-bedroom 

    c) Varies dependant upon Landlord, initial discussion with Property team/viewing, lease drawn up by the Council’s Legal team

d) No standard, varies by property/Landlord

 

7.         a) 18

b) 12 one-bedroom flats, three two-bedroom flats, one two-bedroom house, one three-bedroom house and one four-bedroom maisonette.

c) Current financial year up to 01.01.26 = 89.9%

 

8. a) Emma Collett, Residential Property team, 01271 388328 

Request reference: EIR 11027

Issue date: 28.01.26

Request received:

The applicant requested information held by North Devon Council about vehicular access options and constraints for HELAA sites HEA/FRE/0193 and HEA/FRE/0304 in West Yelland

Time period: 1 January 2016 to present

For avoidance of doubt, the HELAA sites HEA/FRE/0193 and HEA/FRE/0304 are promoted as capable of comprehensive development in the same ownership. This request covers records relating to either site individually, and to any combined or comprehensive scheme covering both sites together

This request also covers records that reference the following Land Registry title numbers (and any part titles carved out of them): DN606049, DN754974, and DN772806

Please search using these terms as well as the site codes: West Yelland Farm, Lagoon View, Lagoon View Community Orchard, Public Open Space, POS, Asset of Community Value, B3233, Welch’s Lane, access, access road, option, option agreement, unilateral notice, restriction, restrictive covenant, easement, ransom strip, confidential, Pearce, Welch, Berry, WestYellandFarm, BDW, Barratt

Context (for clarity only): HELAA notes access alternatives via the B3233 (0304) and Welch’s Lane (0193). During public consultation for the emerging Local Plan, representatives of Pearce (the promoter/developer) stated that the reasons these alternatives cannot be used are “confidential”. I want to understand what constraints the Council has been told about alternative routes and why access through the Lagoon View Community Orchard is being pursued

Public interest (brief): This request concerns access proposals that would affect land understood locally as established Public Open Space and designated as an Asset of Community Value, and which HELAA indicates has alternative access options. If private legal or commercial constraints are being relied on to justify pursuing an access route through community open space, there is a strong public interest in transparency about what constraints have been described to the Council and what assessment the Council has made of necessity and alternatives

Information requested:

1. Pre-application: any pre-application reference numbers, dates, and the final advice note or response letter and any officer report where access to either site (or a combined scheme) is discussed

2. Access constraints: any Council-held documents, emails, meeting notes, internal briefings or records that explain why B3233 access and or Welch’s Lane access is not being pursued, including the Council’s records of any reasons given to it relating to covenants, easements, options, restrictions, third-party consent, highways constraints, or commercial arrangements

3. HELAA material: the original HELAA submissions for 0193 and 0304 and any supporting documents held by the Council that discuss access and or comprehensive development of the sites

4. Correspondence and meetings on access (keyword-limited): Council-held correspondence or meeting notes that discuss access for 0193 and or 0304 (or a combined scheme) with or about any of the following, including their agents:

a) H. A. Welch (Yelland) Limited

b) Individual name redacted or Individual name redacted – personal data

c) WestYellandFarm Limited

d) Pearce Construction or Pearce Homes

e) BDW Trading Limited, Barratt Developments plc, or Barratt Homes

Please limit this to items where the subject includes B3233, Welch’s Lane, Lagoon View, Community Orchard, or the keywords option, covenant, restriction, easement, unilateral notice, confidential

5. Orchard route assessment: any transport, highways or feasibility notes held by the Council that assess access via Lagoon View and or the Community Orchard, including any analysis of whether it is necessary given alternatives

6. POS policy and enforcement: any Council-held notes or emails that assess the Orchard land as Public Open Space, and any discussion of the policy test for loss of open space (including DM09 or equivalent) in relation to an access road, including any enforcement position

If the request is considered too large, please provide first:

i) an index of responsive documents (date, title, author, recipient, short subject), and

ii) the most recent pre-app advice note, and

iii) the documents that explicitly mention B3233, Welch’s Lane, Lagoon View, Community Orchard, option, covenant, restriction, or easement

Response provided:

1 and 4

The Council confirms that it does hold information that falls under the remit of this part of the request – ENQ/1257/2024. However, at the time of this response, the Council confirms that it is unable to disclose any of this information and is therefore full withheld from disclosure in accordance with Regulation 12(5)(d) – confidentiality of proceedings

Under this exception, the Council may refuse to disclose information to the extent that its disclosure would adversely affect the confidentiality of the proceedings of that public authority, or any other public authority, where such confidentiality is provided by law. The test for applying this exemption is to determine whether a disclosure under to the EIR to the world at large would undermine the confidentiality of the pre-application proceedings in question

Within Decision Notice FER0900414 dated 13 July 2020, the ICO accepted that pre-application enquiries and the associated advice have the required formality that constitutes a ‘proceeding’ for the purposes of Regulation 12(5)(d). The second condition that needs to be satisfied when apply this regulation is that the confidentiality of the pre-application enquiry must be protected by law and that confidentiality must be provided for in statute or derived from common law. The Council considers that this second condition is met because a disclosure of the information at this time would adversely affect the duty of confidentiality that attaches to these proceedings, particularly as it is the view of the Developer and their Agent that the pre-application enquiry is considered to be still a live/open enquiry between them and the Planning department. Furthermore, no full planning application has been submitted to the Council either

Further to this, the Council also considers that the common law of confidence applies where the following two conditions are met:

The information requested holds the necessary quality of confidence, and that it must not otherwise be accessible and be of importance to confider and not trivial. Secondly, the information was communicated in circumstances under an agreed obligation of confidence, either expressed explicitly or implicitly

The next stage in determining whether the exception is engaged is to conclude whether the disclosure of the information would adversely affect the confidentiality

“‘Adversely affect’ means there must be an identifiable harm to or negative impact on the interest identified in the exception. Furthermore, the threshold for establishing adverse effect is a high one, since it is necessary to establish that disclosure would have an adverse effect. ‘Would’ means that it is more probable than not, i.e. a more than 50% chance that the adverse effect would occur if the information were disclosed”

The Council is aware that pre-applications and the related advice that may be provided within a confidential context; however it is also aware that the information cannot be subject to a blanket restriction on disclosure and so whilst it does not proactively publish pre-application enquiries that it processes, it does, in accordance with the Regulations consider all requests for this information on a case by case basis as and when they are received,  considering the merits of each individual request in order to determine whether the information should be disclosed or if any exceptions apply, either in full or partially

The Council publishes the following advice on its website: Confidentiality and freedom of information - Planning. As the Council was not already in possession of completed forms from both the Developer and the Landowner(s) regarding any specific information that they have provided to the Authority at the time the request was made, the Council was required to make contact with their Agents in order that they be provided with the opportunity to consider the request and, where any concerns were identified, to provide these so that they can be considered further, in accordance with ICO guidance

The Public Interest Test

As the EIR exceptions are subject to the Public Interest Test, the Council has gone onto consider whether the public interest in maintaining the exception outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information:

Arguments that favour Disclosure

Disclosure would have provided the applicant with information that is not made routinely publicly available and is currently held in confidence by the Planning department. Disclosure would have provided the communications to date between the enquiry applicant (Pearce Homes) via their Agent and the Planning the department so far, promoting accountability and transparency

There will always be a particular public interest in transparency where information relates to its proceedings that would have a significant impact on the requester and the wider community that live within the vicinity of the Community orchard at Lagoon View

The requester indicated in their request that provision of the information would enable them to understand what constraints the Council has been told about alternative routes and why access through the community orchard is being pursued and what assessment the Council has made of necessity and alternatives

Arguments that favour Withholding

It is the view of the Developer and their Agent that the pre-application enquiry is still a live/open matter and is, at the time of this response (28.01.26), yet to be concluded. Whilst the Council did issue a response dated 22 December 2025,  the pre-application fee entitles the Developer and their Agent to three meetings, however at the time of this response they have had two (one in September 2025 and one in November 2025) and so they still have the opportunity to have a further meeting with the Planning department

Disclosure at this time would have an adverse effect on the confidentiality off the pre-application process as it would damage the general principle of confidentiality itself and result in harm to the interest of the exception is designed to protect

Disclosure of specific information relating to the enquiry, at this time, would in the Council’s view, discourage full engagement in the future within the pre-application process for fear of the public dissemination of the information, particularly when the pre-application enquiry process is yet to be concluded no formal planning application has been submitted by the Developer

The Developer and their Agent confirm that they do not consent to the disclosure of the applicable information relating to their enquiry and that the duration of such confidentiality must remain in place whilst such negotiations are ongoing with the Planning department

Further to the above, the Council also considers that there is limited public interest in the disclosure of information which relates to an interest which is private in nature. It would be unfair to the Developer if the Council were to disclose information which they have voluntarily supplied to and also received from the authority on the matter and that it is their understanding and expectation that the Council would hold it confidentially during the pre-application process

Any such disclosure would leave the Council open to potential legal challenge by the Developer in the event that it could be evidenced that a disclosure has harmed/prejudiced their commercial interests

The pre-application process allows applicants the opportunity to make an approach to the authority to ascertain the constraints of a site from their perspective, alongside the interpretation of planning polices by the applications submitted by the pre-application applicants, away from public scrutiny and they do so on a voluntary basis with the understanding that these enquiries will remain confidential during this process

Balance of the public interest arguments

In the considering of all of the arguments as set out above, it is noted within the Information Tribunal in Ofcom v the ICO and T-mobile found that: “for a factor to carry weight in favour of the maintenance of an exception it must be one that arises naturally from the nature of the exception. It is a factor in favour of maintaining that exception, not any matter that may generally be said to justify withholding information from release to the public, regardless of content”(Appeal number EA/2006/0078, para 58). On appeal, on appeal to the High Court, Lord Justice Laws confirmed the Tribunal’s approach as lawful, commenting (at paragraph 47) that “the Tribunal’s view set out at paragraph 58 was indeed reasonable; but more than that… it accords with the statutory scheme”

The Council is of the opinion that the arguments presented in favour of maintain the exception do arise naturally from the nature of the exception. There will always be a public interest in protecting confidential information, and breaching an obligation of confidence undermines the relationship of trust between the authority and those who make pre-application enquiries, particularly those where enquiries are open/live at the time of request and response. For this reason, the grounds on which confidences can be breached are normally limited and so where the exception is engaged it is considered that there will always be some inherent public interest in maintaining it

However, the Council wishes to make it clear that there will also always be a general public interest in disclosure, and so determining the balance is to consider how far the information would add to public understanding. In this case, the Council considers the balance favours maintaining the exception and withholding the information at this time

2. The Planning department confirms that they have not identified any recorded information/documents that contains this specific information. Whilst the following is not information that is considered to be held for the purposes of the Regulations, Jenni Meakins, Lead Planning Officer confirms that she was verbally informed at a meeting on 25.11.25 that the Developer did not have an option over any land with alternative access and were not intending to pursue development on that land at this time

3. 

The applicant was provided with to the following information, with consent obtained from the Agents for the Developer and Landowner:

Smith Submission (cfs99) (FRE-0304)_Redacted

Smith Submission (cfs350) (FRE-0193)_Redacted

Smith Submission Site Plan (cfs99)(FRE-0304)

Smith Submission Site Plan (cfs350) (FRE-0193)

Smith Submission Title Plan (cfs350) (FRE-0193)

RE HELAA land submission_Redacted (email chain with Planning Policy)

HEAFRE0193_Redacted

WS Submission (cfs85) (FRE-0193)

WS Submission LR Snapshot (cfs85)(FRE-0193)

In addition, the Council also provides the following information as attached:

Photos: 20230310_110632

             20230310_110651

             20230310_110655

             20230310_110751

Lagoon View Review Listing Decision Final_Redacted

Land Register Title Register DN606049 as at 16.11.23 at 17:53:23_Redacted

RE Lagoon View Community Orchard   Ref WollensMAPEA35742233_Redacted (email chain with Wollens Solicitors)

Site Plan Land at Yelland 13.11.13

Title Plan Extract

The Agent that made the submission on behalf of the landowner has requested that it is made clear within this response that, at the time of the call for sites, the eastern parcel as shown edged blue was being, and still is being promoted by the developer (Pearce Homes) but at the time they had not disclosed to their clients that they had made a submission to the HELAA process, as stated in the attached correspondence (RE HELAA land submission_Redacted (email chain with Planning Policy)); therefore the Agent for the landowner made a submission on both parcels in order to protect their client interests in the even that a submission was not made on this land. They have since entered into an option agreement with Pearce Homes on all of the land shown edged red and blue in their submission

With regard to HEAFRE0193, please note that the Subject field references HEA/FRE/0193 correctly, however it is noted that the site referenced thereafter is incorrect and relates to another area of land, however the content of the email is correct. The Planning Policy Officer has confirmed that they cannot find a record of ever receiving a reply from the Agent to this email

Some of the information has been redacted. The Council considers that this information to be exempt under Regulation 13 of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 as the information constitutes third party personal data and those individual(s) would have no reasonable expectation for the Council to make their personal information publicly available, particularly as a disclosure under the Regulations is not just to the requester, but also to the world at large, and thus places that information into the public domain

Regulation 13(1) provides that personal data shall not be disclosed if one of the conditions in Regulation 13(2A), (2B) or (3A) are satisfied. In this case Regulation 13 (2A)(a) is met because disclosure of this information would amount to a breach of the fair processing provisions of the General Data Protection Regulation, therefore, by virtue of Regulation 13 of the Environmental Information Regulations, the Council is exempt from any obligation to disclose the redacted information

5. The Planning department confirms that they have not identified any recorded information/documents that contains this specific information

6. Applicant referred to information held on enforcement record 9539. As with some of the information disclosed under 3 above, most of this has been redacted of any personal data in accordance with Regulation 13 as set out above. The Council confirms that this is the only information that it holds in relation to this part of the request 

Request reference: FOI 11029

Issue date: 14.01.26

Request received: 

The applicant requested the full details of the numbers of North Devon District Council (NDDC) employees as at the 31 March 2025:

1. Number of NDDC FULL TIME employees, employed on a NDDC employment contract but not those who are employed either on agency contracts or through a 3rd party contractor

2. Number of NDDC PART TIME employees, employed on a NDDC employment contract but not those who are employed either on an agency contract or through a 3rd party contractor

Response provided:

1. 373

2. 94 

Request reference: FOI 11030

Issue date: 22.01.26

Request received: 

The applicant requested the following information regarding fly-tipping over the last 10 years:

1. The number of fly-tipping incidents reported each year

2. The number of these incidents involving mattresses, if recorded

3. The cost to the council for collection and disposal of fly-tipped items

Response provided:

1. Up to and including 2023, applicant referred to the Council’s published Fly-tipping dataset for this information

2024 = 543

2025 = 435 up to and including 30 September. Please note that the figure for October – December 2025 is not yet available. The dataset will be updated end of January/early February 2026 as soon as the data becomes available

2. The Council does not record this information

3. Up to and including 2023, applicant referred to the Council’s published fly-tipping dataset for this information, as linked above

2024 = £8,145

2025 = £6,525 up to and including 30 September. Please note that the figure for October – December 2025 is not yet available. The dataset will be updated end of January/early February 2026 as soon as the data becomes available

Request reference: FOI 11031

Issue date: 16.01.26

Request received: 

The applicant requested a copy of the current revision of the North Devon District Council, Employee Disciplinary Policy and Procedure

Response provided:

The applicant was provided with the requested information, which is available upon request> 

Request reference: FOI 11032

Issue date: 02.01.26

Request received: 

The applicant requested the following information for all sports facilities (including, but not limited to, leisure centres, swimming pools, playing fields, sports halls, and courts) sold or disposed of by the Council between 2015 and 2025

1. Number of Facilities: The total number of sports facilities sold or disposed of during this period

2. Asset Details: For each facility:

1. The type of facility (e g "Leisure Centre," "Football Pitch")

3. Financial Value: The final sale price (or "consideration") received by the Council for each asset. If the asset was transferred for a nominal sum (e g via Community Asset Transfer), please state this

4. Square Footage/Size: The total square footage (GIA) or acreage (for outdoor pitches/land) of each facility or site sold

5. Buyer Category: Whether the facility was sold to a private developer, a community group, or another public body

Response provided:

1. One

2. Three dilapidated tennis courts (1,600 sqm) and informal open space (1,200 sqm) at Rock Park, Barnstaple

3. Combined £150,000 re-invested to resurface two tennis courts at Rock Park, Barnstaple and toward construction of AGP at Tarka Leisure Centre.

4. 2,800 sqm combined

5. Sold to a private individual 

Request reference: FOI 11033

Issue date: 28.01.26

Request received: 

1. For each of the past three years, what was the loudest noise (in dB) recorded as part of an investigation into, or monitoring relating to, a noise complaint to the council?

2. The applicant requested provision of a non-identifying location (i e street name) and brief description of each of these three episodes (e g complaint about excessive dog barking in Soandso street, Suchandsuchtown)?

3. The outcome of each of these three noise investigations/actions?

4. How many FPNs were issued by the council in relation to noise complaints in total for each of the past three calendar years?

Response provided:

1, 2 and 3.

The Council’s Environmental Protection (EP) team confirmed that is unable to provide the above information, due to the way in which is recorded. The EP team does not store decibel readings within a central location, nor can the readings be extracted from the system by running a report or query. The only way it could be provided would require an officer within the EP team to manually go through every noise complaint file received within the period 1 January 2023 – 31 December 2025 which totals 782 complaints. It is estimated that they would require a minimum of three minutes per complaint file to identify, locate, retrieve and collate the information (where held) that falls within the remit of the above parts of the request

Section 12 of the Act makes provision for public authorities to refuse requests for information where the cost of dealing with them would exceed the appropriate limit, which for Local Authorities is set at £450 by the Freedom of Information and Data Protection (Appropriate Limit and Fees) Regulations 2004. This represents the estimated cost of one person spending 18 hours at £25 per hour in determining whether the Council holds the information, locating, retrieving and collating the information

It was estimated by the EP team that it would take in excess of 39 hours to provide the requested information. The procedure would cause serious disruption to the day to day working of the EP team and therefore it was confirmed to the applicant that the Council is unable to process these parts of their request any further. As set out in the previous paragraph, the Council has the right to refuse to provide the information in accordance with Section 12 of the Act

4. Details of any FPNs that have been issued relating to noise complaints where issued will be included within the Council’s published Environmental Fixed Penalty Notice datasets which are uploaded annually

The datasets for 2023 and 2024 are currently published; however, the 2025 dataset is currently being prepared for publication which is anticipated to be completed in early February 2026; however, the EP team confirms that there were no FPNs issued regarding noise complaints in 2025

Request reference: FOI 11034

Issue date: 22.01.26

Request received: 

The applicant requested the following for the calendar years of 2023, 2024 and 2025:

1. How much did the council spend on total housing expenditure in this period?

2. How much of this total (in Question 1) was spent on private related housing? (Including temporary accommodation)

3. How much did the council spend on temporary accommodation each year?

4. How much did central government provide your council for all housing related expenditure?

5. Do local authorities have the resources to adequately tackle housing issues in their areas?

6. Other than grant funding, what can be done to support local authorities address housing issues, both with regards to access and condition?

7. What changes would the council recommend to the private market to make housing more accessible?

Response provided:

Questions 1, 2 and 3

The applicant was referred to the Council’s published dataset which provides this information per financial year (the data is not held per calendar year) and covers the requested years to which was requested:

Cost of providing temporary accommodation to the Council

4. The Council received the following Homelessness Prevention Grant:

2022/23 = £470,287

2023/24 = £590,411

2024/25 = £607,544

Questions 5, 6 and 7

The Council does not consider that these to be specific requests for information that is held for the purposes of the Act and instead considers that they are seeking a view or opinion which falls outside of the scope of the Act and so the Council is satisfied that this is information it does not hold

Request reference: FOI 11035

Issue date: 09.01.26

Request received: 

The applicant requested a document in Excel or CSV format which sets out the following information for each road in the area the Council covers which contains at least 1 residential address, as at 1 January 2026:

1.         Road Name

2.         Number of Houses

3.         Number of Registered Electors

4.         Polling District

5.         Parish Ward (if applicable)

6.         Parish (if applicable)

7.         Ward

8.         County Division

9.         Parliamentary Constituency

Response provided:

The Council confirmed that it does not hold any of the information requested. In discharge of its obligation under section 1(1)(b) the Council confirms that in this instance, information held by the Returning Officer or Electoral Returning Officer does not fall under the remit of the Freedom of Information Act 2000

The registration of electors is governed by the Representation of the People Act 1983 as amended. Under Section 8 of the Act, the Council must appoint an officer of the Council to be the registration officer for any constituency or part of a constituency coterminous with or situated in the Council’s area. The Chief Executive for North Devon Council is the appointed officer for the registration area of North Devon

Their appointment as Electoral Registration Officer is separate to their appointment as Chief Executive and, although appointed by the Council, the Electoral Registration Officer’s responsibilities and duties are personal. An example of this is that the register of electors is deemed to be the property of the Electoral Registration Officer, not the local authority

The Electoral Registration Officer does not carry out the duties on behalf of the Council but in his own personal capacity. A list of public bodies and local authorities that are subject to the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act is included in Schedule 1 to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 

The Freedom of Information Act does not list any person appointed under the Representation of the People Act 1983. It follows that the Electoral Registration Officer, Returning Officer or any other person appointed under the Act are not subject to the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000

Request reference: FOI 11036

Issue date: 06.01.26

Request received: 

How much the local authority claimed from the Government for running the 2024 Police and Crime Commissioner elections or if it does not have a PCC or PFCC, the cost of running the Mayoral elections for its area

If the Council was not responsible for running the election in its area, please provide a NIL response

Response provided:

The applicant was advised that the Council has submitted a claim for £235,697.69 for running the 2024 Police and Crime Commissioner elections, however it is yet to be approved

Request reference: FOI 11037

Issue date: 07.01.26

Request received: 

The applicant requested, for each year from 2015 to 2024 inclusive:

The total number of premises licences in force at the end of each calendar year

A breakdown of those premises by licence type, specifically:

- pubs

- bars

- nightclubs

- late-night venues (open after 11pm)

The number of new premises licences granted in each year

The number of premises licences surrendered, lapsed or revoked in each year

If available, a list of premises that closed or surrendered their licence during this period, including:

- venue name

- address

- year of closure or surrender

Response provided:

Applicant provided with the requested information in in Excel format, which is available on request  

Request reference: EIR 11039

Issue date: 26.01.26

Request received: 

CON29 information relating to a property at EX32 8NN

Response provided:

Applicant provided with the information, where held and also directed to the Council’s website for some of the information 

Request reference: FOI 11040

Issue date: 15.01.26

Request received: 

The applicant made the following request relating to the authority’s marketing, communications and engagement activity, including associated staffing, budgets, spend and functions, for the most recent full financial year for which data is available:

1. Organisational structure and staffing

a) The total number of employees (FTE) working wholly or primarily in marketing, communications, media, public relations, engagement, consultation or related functions

b) The directorate, department or service area in which these staff sit

c) A breakdown of roles or grades where available (e g senior leadership, managers, officers)

 

2. Budget and expenditure

a) The total annual budget allocated to marketing, communications and engagement activities

b) The total actual spend for the year

c) A breakdown of spend between:

• Staff costs (including salaries, on-costs and temporary staff or contractors) - broken down by post

• External suppliers or agencies

• Advertising and media spend

• Website development

• Graphic and digital design

• Print expenditure 

• Events, consultation exercises and engagement programmes

• Any other significant categories of spend

 

3. Core activities

An outline of the core activities undertaken by the marketing, communications and engagement function(s), for example:

• Corporate communications and media relations

• Campaigns and public information

• Internal communications

• Digital and social media

• Web development

• Advertising/recruitment advertising/public notices

• Public consultation and engagement

• Community engagement

• Stakeholder or partner communications

 

4. Discretionary vs non-discretionary activity

Please indicate:

a) Which marketing, communications and engagement activities are considered essential or statutory (including any required by legislation or regulation)

b) Which activities are considered discretionary or non-essential

c) Any distinction you make between internal, external and community-based engagement

 

5. Consultation and engagement spend

Please confirm:

a) Total spend on consultation and engagement activities (internal and external)

b) How this spend is categorised or recorded within your authority (e g as part of communications, policy, regeneration, public health or other budgets)

Response provided:

1. Organisational structure and staffing

a) 3 FTE

b) Communications team under Customer Focus service

c) Head of Customer Focus, Communications and Feedback Manager, three Communications Officers

2. Budget and expenditure 

a) 2025/26 £310,961  
b) 2025/26 spend to date: £236,194.28  
c) A breakdown of spend between:

• Staff costs (including salaries, on-costs and temporary staff or contractors) - broken down by post

2025/26 Salary Costs for the year: 
Communications and Feedback officers - £37,916 to £45,805
Communications Manager - £45,805 to £54,381
Graphic and Design officers - £41,888 to £45,805
Webmaster - £41,888 to £49,653

The Council is unable to disclose the actual salary costs of the above officers as this information is their personal data and is therefore exempt from disclosure under Section 40 of the Act as the those individuals would have no reasonable expectation for the Council to make their personal information publicly available, particularly as a disclosure under the Act is not the requester, but to the world at large, and so a disclosure places the information into the public domain for all to see

Section 40(2) provides that personal data is exempt information if one of the conditions set out in section 40(3A), (3B) or (4A) is satisfied. In this case Section 40(3A)(A) is met because disclosure of this information would breach the fair processing principle contained in the General Data Protection Regulation. This is an absolute exemption and there is therefore no requirement to consider the public interest

Instead, the Council provided the pay scales for each of the roles held within the team

• External suppliers or agencies = £0
• Advertising and media spend = £20,000
• Website development = £0
• Graphic and digital design = 2025/26 spend to date £81,104.96
• Print expenditure = Included in the graphic and digital design spend as it is one service
• Events, consultation exercises and engagement programmes = Engagement software is £12,800
• Any other significant categories of spend = £0

The following information describes the general scope of activities undertaken by the Council’s communications functions at the time of the request. Not all activities listed are always undertaken, and responsibility for specific tasks may vary depending on capacity, service requirements, and statutory obligations. The description is provided for information purposes and does not represent an exhaustive or definitive list of all communications activity undertaken by the officers within the team

3. Core activities

• Corporate communications and media relations
  • Managing the council’s relationship with local, regional and national media
  • Issuing press releases and media statements
  • Responding to media enquiries
  • Providing reputational risk management and reactive communications support
  • Supporting senior officers and elected members with media briefings and statements where required
• Campaigns and public information
  • Planning and delivering communications campaigns to inform residents about council services, initiatives, and statutory responsibilities
  • Ensuring public information is accessible, accurate and consistent
• Internal communications
  • Managing communications with council employees, including corporate updates and organisational messages
  • Supporting staff engagement and awareness of policies, programmes and priorities
  • Producing internal newsletters and digital content
• Digital and social media
  • Managing the council’s corporate social media channels
  • Publishing and monitoring digital content to provide information
• Web development
  • Managing and maintaining the council’s website content
  • Ensuring information is up to date, accessible and compliant with statutory requirements
  • Supporting service areas to publish accurate and user-focused online content
• Advertising/recruitment advertising/public notices
  • Placing statutory public notices and public information advertisements
  • Coordinating recruitment advertising in line with council policies
• Public consultation and engagement
  • Supporting statutory and non-statutory public consultations
  • Promoting consultation activity and publishing outcomes where appropriate
• Community engagement
  • Supporting engagement with local communities, residents and voluntary sector organisations
  • Promoting community initiatives and events
  • Facilitating two-way communication between the council and local communities
• Stakeholder or partner communications
  • Supporting partnership working through coordinated messaging and information sharing

4. Discretionary versus non-discretionary activity

Please indicate:
a) Which marketing, communications and engagement activities are considered essential or statutory (including any required by legislation or regulation).

• Publication of statutory notices and information required by legislation or regulation
  • Communications necessary to support the delivery of statutory services and legal duties
  • Compliance-related communications, including accessibility requirements
  • Public information and media communications during incidents or emergencies
  • Internal communications necessary for organisational governance and safe service delivery

b) Which activities are considered discretionary or non-essential.

• Non-statutory campaigns, promotional activity or awareness-raising
  • Brand, reputation or place-based marketing
  • Non-statutory consultation or engagement

c) Any distinction you make between internal, external and community-based engagement.

• Internal communications relate to employees and elected members
  • External communications relate to residents, service users, partners, businesses and the media
  • Community-based engagement relates to engagement with local communities and voluntary or community sector organisations and may be statutory or discretionary depending on the service or activity

5. Consultation and engagement spend 

Please confirm:
a) Total spend on consultation and engagement activities (internal and external).
b) How this spend is categorised or recorded within your authority (e g as part of communications, policy, regeneration, public health or other budgets). 

The response to this is already provided within the response provided for Q2 above - consultation and engagement software, £12,800 

Request reference: FOI 11042

Issue date: 08.01.26

Request received: 

The applicant requested information relating to cladding remediation in buildings within the administrative area of the authority, providing the figures up to the latest possible date:

1. The total number of residential and mixed-use buildings in the council area identified as having unsafe cladding or other external wall system fire-related defects that place them in scope for remediation programmes

2. Of those identified, how many have:

a. Have remediation work in progress (i e physical works on site) 

b. Completed remediation work 

c. Not yet begun remediation

Response provided:

The Council provided the applicant with the following response in relation to North Devon Council owned properties only, it confirmed that it does not hold this information on all properties district wide:

1. Zero

2. N/A 

Building Control are not aware of any unsafe cladding on residential and mixed-use buildings in North Devon, however Building Control do not oversee all building works and so it is possible for there to be buildings with unsafe cladding that have been overseen by Private Building Control bodies 

Request reference: FOI 11043

Issue date: 12.01.28

Request received: 

The applicant requested a copy of the 2018 Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) for the Legal Case Management System (Iken) dated September 2018, along with any subsequent updates

Additionally, the applicant requested confirmation if there is a DPIA for the migration of Iken to the cloud? 

Response provided:

The applicant was provided with a redacted copy of the 2018 DPIA as requested (all personal data redacted in accordance with Section 40 of the Act) and advised that the Data Protection team is in the process of updating the DPIA for Iken Cloud and so this is not yet complete

Request reference: FOI 11044

Issue date: 15.01.26

Request received:

1. Is your local authority using, or has it previously tested, sound detector technology as described above to monitor public areas for emergencies or anti-social behaviour?

2. If yes, please provide details of how many sound detectors or sound detector-equipped CCTV cameras you are operating and when they were installed

Response provided:

1.   No, it is not currently and has not previously

2. N/A 

Request reference: FOI 11047

Issue date: 19.01.26

Request received:

1. The policy or procedure for checking the legitimacy of service charges where a resident is claiming benefits to cover them

2. The number of housing benefit or universal credit claimants whose service charges are paid directly to their landlord, including where this is a single payment incorporating rents plus service charges

3. The proportion of the above whose landlords are housing associations, if recorded

Response provided:

1. The procedure is that when assessing a claim, the service charges are scrutinised by the Benefits team to determine if they are eligible or ineligible in accordance with the Housing Benefit regulations. The Benefits team would write to the customer or landlord if there were any queries

2. There are currently 2,100 live Housing Benefit claimants. In order to be able to answer this part of the request would require a Benefits Officer to manually go through each of the 2,100 claim files to identify, locate, retrieve and collate this information as it is not recorded within the system used where it can be easily obtain. The Benefits team estimate that they would require approximately 10 minutes per claim

Section 12 of the Act makes provision for public authorities to refuse requests for information where the cost of dealing with them would exceed the appropriate limit, which for Local Authorities is set at £450 by the Freedom of Information and Data Protection (Appropriate Limit and Fees) Regulations 2004. This represents the estimated cost of one person spending 18 hours at £25 per hour in determining whether the Council holds the information, locating, retrieving and collating the information

It has been estimated by the Benefits team that it would take approximately 350 hours to provide the requested information. The procedure would cause serious disruption to the day to day working of the Benefits team; therefore it was confirmed that the Council is unable to process this part of the request any further. As set out in the previous paragraph, the Council has the right to refuse to provide the information in accordance with Section 12 of the Act

3. The Benefits team are unable to answer this question due to the time it would take to answer 2 above

Request reference: FOI 11048

Issue date: 22.01.26

Request received:

The applicant requested information held by the Council about enforcement actions taken in relation to private landlords and privately rented homes

1. Information requested

Please provide, for the period 1 January 2020 to 31 December 2025 inclusive, a month-by-month dataset showing the number of enforcement actions undertaken against private landlords and/or in respect of privately rented dwellings

For each month, please provide the following fields (as held in Council records):

A. Month (YYYY-MM)

B. Enforcement action type (using own internal categories or statutory power labels)

C. Reason/category for the action (using whatever category/issue code used for tracking)

D. Outcome/status of the action (using tracking outcomes, e g complied, appealed, revoked, conviction, civil penalty issued, penalty paid/unpaid, works in default completed, etc)

E. Count of actions (integer)

If your system records an action at property-level or case-level, please count each recorded enforcement action instance. If multiple notices/orders are recorded under a single case, please count each distinct action as recorded in your system

Response provided:

The applicant was provided with the requested information, where held in Excel format, which is available upon request  

Request reference: FOI 11049

Issue date: 16.01.26

Request received: 

The applicant requested information on vehicles currently licensed for public hire (Hackney Carriage and Private Hire) with the authority

A list of all vehicles that are currently registered, including the following details:

-Vehicle make, model and registration number (VRM)

-Vehicle licence issue and expiry date

Additionally, confirmation whether North Devon Council maintains a publicly accessible taxi register on its website

Response provided:

The applicant was directed to the Council’s public register for Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Drivers and Private Hire vehicles

The applicant was provided with the information relating to Hackney Carriage Vehicles as this information is not required to be published, and is available upon request

Request reference: EIR 11050

Issue date: 29.01.26

Request received: 

The applicant requested the following information regarding Barnstaple Retail Park, Devon, EX31 2AU (a Site boundary plan was provided). Confirmation whether or not the site or surrounding area is on the council’s list of prioritised sites under Part 2A and, if so, what priority it is considered to be? Also, advise whether the council is aware of any previous intrusive investigations and/or remediation at the Site

Response provided:

The Council’s Environmental Protection team provided the applicant with a map and and spreadsheet (QGIS contaminated land report) in response and confirmed that the department does not hold any other records regarding potentially contaminated land in this area. It was recommended that they also contact the Environment Agency and Devon County Council regarding any information they may hold in relation to the site or the land in the vicinity

North Devon Council has not yet fully inspected its area to identify sites of contaminated land as required by Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. As such, it is not possible to say whether or not this site will be classified under this legislation. At this time, it is considered unlikely that this site would be the subject of inspection under this legislation to the future 

Request reference: FOI 11052

Issue date: 13.01.26

Request received: 

The applicant requested an email address for whoever within the authority would be able to provide them with information with regard to a feasibility study that relates to the following:

• Education

• Tourism

• Venue visitor information (e g museums, libraries, historical sites, etc)

• Community engagement

• Event information

Response provided:

The Council provided the following response:

Tourism = tourism@northdevon.gov.uk 

Community engagement = communityengagement@northdevon.gov.uk   

Museum of Barnstaple and North Devon = museum@northdevon.gov.uk   

Cultural Development Fund project (which includes events) = culture@northdevon.gov.uk 

The applicant was directed to Devon County Council with regard to Education and also Tourism 

Request reference: FOI 11053

Issue date: 16.01.26

Request received: 

The applicant requested a list including the vehicle registration number, make and model of the vehicle of all vehicles that were issued a license as a Taxi, Hackney Carriage or for Private Hire (both approved and active licenses) between the dates of: 01/08/2025 to 30/11/2025

Response provided:

The applicant was provided with the information in Excel format, which is available upon request 

Request reference: EIR 11055

Issue date: 26.01.26

Request received: 

CON29 information relating to a property at EX36 3BE

Response provided:

Applicant provided with the information, where held and also directed to the Council’s website for some of the information 

Request reference: FOI 11058

Issue date: 14.01.26

Request received: 

The applicant requested the following information broken down by each of the past three full calendar years:

1. The number of PSPOs issued 

2. Where PSPOs were issued, the brief details of those orders

3. The number of fines issued under PSPOs 

4. Details of each fines issued and the fine amount 

5. The number of prosecutions brought for breaches of PSPOs

Response provided:

1. Four

2. The Four PSPOs are published on the Council’s website and therefore this information is already publicly available: Public spaces protection orders

3. The Council publishes annual datasets by calendar year, which provide the details of Environmental Fixed Penalty Notices that have been issued by the Council and will include those issued for a breach of a PSPO within the Council’s area: Environmental Fixed Penalty Notices with the datasets for 2024, 2023 and 2022 published. The 2025 data is currently being prepared for publication later this month

4. As per 3 above

5. The Council publishes a Prosecution dataset which is updated quarterly and will include the details of any applicable prosecutions: Prosecutions and covers the financial years 2019/20 – 2025/26 with the most recent update completed 08.01.2026 

Request reference: FOI 11064

Issue date: 20.01.26

Request received: 

The applicant requested the number of cyber-attacks the local authority has been subject to for each of the past ten years, beginning with 2015

Response provided:

Section 1(1)(a) of the Act requires the Council to inform requesters whether it holds information of the description specified in their requests

Section 31(1)(a) states that information which is not exempt information by virtue of section 30 is exempt information if its disclosure under the Act would, or would be likely to, prejudice (a) the prevention or detection of crime. Under section 31(3) the duty to confirm or deny does not arise if, or to the extent that, compliance with section 1(1)(a) would, or would be likely to, prejudice any of the matters mentioned in subsection (1)

In light of the above, the Council neither confirmed or denied whether the information requested by the applicant exists or is held as it is exempt from disclosure under section 31(3) of the Act. Confirming or denying its existence would be likely to prejudice the prevention or detection of crime. It is the Council’s opinion that the confirmation or denial of the possession of the requested information would be likely to compromise the Council’s information security strategies by giving cyber criminals insight into vulnerabilities which may, or may not, exist

In the ICO decision FS50600199 it was submitted that disclosing the information would help an IT attacker establish that its attack had or had not been detected. The ICO confirmed this and stated that revealing whether the public authority holds or does not hold the number of cyber security/details of would pose a real and significant threat to the authority’s operations, and consequently, the prevention or detection of crime. The test is whether the prejudice envisaged from complying with section 1(1)(a) is real and significant and in this case the compliance with section 1(1)(a) would be likely to assist a determined attacker, and consequently, that the risk to the authority’s IT systems as a result, is real and significant

When applying this exemption, the Council is carried out a Public Interest Test which considers the factors that favour disclosure and the withholding of the data:

Factors in favour of disclosure

Would promote openness and transparency about how the Council deals with cyber-crime and demonstrate its accountability in managing this in order that the public can be reassured that the Council is doing everything it is practicably able to keep the information is holds safe

Factors in favour of withholding

When the Council releases information to an individual pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act 2000, it is effectively releasing it into the public domain for all to see, that includes those who may not have genuine and honest reasons for wanting to see the information and maybe seeking the information in order to identify, expose or take advantage of potential weaknesses in the Council’s specific ICT security software and hardware, in order to cause intended damage to the Council’s systems or theft of information held

The Council operates a multi layered approach to ICT security. One of these layers is to obfuscate information that could be used to comprise its security

The Council considered that the answering the request could be used to jeopardise the integrity of the Council’s systems via current or future vulnerabilities. Revealing the requested information would provide some of the Council’s security counter measures and mean that potential hackers would have an insight into both the strengths and weaknesses of the Council’s cyber security measures and ultimately provide them with an advantage in identifying, or being able to easily find potential vulnerabilities and accordingly weaken and/or breach the Council’s security controls currently in place. There is a strong public interest in not making it easier for crime to be committed and so the Council is required to consider very carefully the amount of information is chooses to disclose in this regard

The Council’s ICT team indicated that the risk of cyber-attack is greater than even given today’s current climate and raise valid concerns that the Council was unable to expand upon further as that information in itself would disclose information that could be used to target the Council negatively

The Council determined that for the reasons as set out above, the public interest in preventing crime from being committed outweighs the public interest in releasing the information on this occasion

Request reference: FOI 11065

Issue date: 20.01.26

Request received: 

The applicant requested the following information for the 2024/25 financial year:

1. The number of contacts from those threatened with homelessness (likely to become homeless within 56 days) sorted by contact method e g phone, email, in-person, web form

2. The number of contacts from legally homeless individuals sorted by contact method e g phone, email, in-person, web form

3. The number of contacts from those threatened with homelessness or those who are legally homeless which led to resolution e g accommodation found

Response provided:

1. 561 contacts were made to the Council from those threatened with homelessness (likely to become homeless within 56 days). The Housing team does not record the contact methods; therefore, this information is not held

2. 517 contacts were made to the Council from legally homeless individuals. As with 1 above, the Housing team does not record the contact methods; therefore, this information is not held

3. 241 contacts were made to the Council from those threatened with homelessness or those who are legally homeless which led to resolution e g accommodation found. As with 1 and 2 above, the Housing team does not record the contact methods; therefore, this information is not held

Request reference: FOI 11067

Issue date: 26.01.28

Request received: 

The applicant requested to be provided the ratepayer(s) names, and the current rates charged for the 2024/25 financial year (including reliefs and exemptions) and the respective Rateable Values in respect of Unit 1 Fishleigh Yard at Fishleigh Rock Farm, Umberleigh, EX37 9DX

Response provided:

The Council confirmed that it is unable to disclose any of the requested information to the applicant as the information exempt under Section 40 of the Act, as it constitutes personal data

The Ratepayer concerned (who is an individual and not a company) would have no reasonable expectation for the Council to make their personal information publicly available, particularly as a disclosure under the Act is not just to the requester, but also to the world at large, and so a disclosure under the Act would therefore place the information into the public domain for all to see

Section 40(2) provides that personal data is exempt information if one of the conditions set out in section 40(3A), (3B) or (4A) is satisfied. In this case Section 40(3A)(A) is met because disclosure of this information would breach the fair processing principle contained in the General Data Protection Regulation. This is an absolute exemption and there is therefore no requirement to consider the public interest

The applicant was directed to the Council’s Data Protection team with regards to submitting a Data Exemption request for the information, should they wish to do so

Request reference: EIR 11071

Issue date: 22.01.26

Request received: 

With regard to Planning application no. 79020, the applicant requested any information held regarding the Officer Report Condition 6: Construction Management Plan (CMP)

Response provided:

The council confirmed that at the time of its response (22.01.26) it does not hold any of the information requested

The Planning Case Officer for the application confirmed that the CMP will be published via the Planning Tracker for the application once it has been received from the Agent and that they anticipate this will be received before Easter

Furthermore, the Planning Case Officer has also received confirmation from the Agent that they have been on site to carry out test pits for ground stability etc, however no development has occurred on the site as of yet 

Request reference: FOI 11078

Issue date: 26.01.26

Request received: 

The applicant requested the following information regarding North Devon District Council’s use of the Severe Weather Emergency Protocol (SWEP) during summer 2025

1. How many times North Devon District Council’s Severe Weather Emergency Protocol (SWEP) was activated between the dates 31 May 2025 and 1 September 2025, inclusive?
2. For each activation, the exact date range the SWEP was active between, inclusive (e g if the SWEP was activated on 10 June 2025 and ended on 14 June 2025, the date range would be 10/06/2025-14/06/2025)
3. For each activation, the reason why the SWEP was activated?
4. For each activation, a list of actions the council took to support people while the SWEP was active, including any actions that were taken to support people in social rented housing owned by the council
5. A copy of the Council’s latest Severe Weather Emergency Protocol policy document, or a link to where a copy can be found on the Council website

Response provided:

1. During this time, the Council followed guidance when ‘Health Heat Alerts’ were issued.  The Council does not keep a formal record of when this was activated as this forms part of North Devon Council’s Outreach team’s work.  Either the Service Manager or the Emergency Planning Officer will notify in regard to any alerts and action is then taken by the time to provide a cool space and in addition to increase Outreach ensuring water, sun cream and hats are readily available

2. No data recorded

3. During these dates it would have been Health Heat Alerts only

4. Support during these date ranges would have only been given to those rough sleeping and street attached

5. The Council does not have a specific policy but instead follows the guidance provided by the Government which incorporates best practice guidance from Homeless Link:

Supporting vulnerable people before and during cold weather: for those providing services to rough sleepers - GOV.UK 

Request reference: FOI 11080

Issue date: 26.01.26

Request received: 

The applicant requested the most up-to-date list of all incorporated companies within the authority’s billing area that have a council tax credit against their account

The applicant noted that they were not requesting business rates data but council tax accounts held by companies such as charities e g housing associations and property developers etc

The applicant requested the following data in the response: 

(A) The company name to which the account in credit relates to

(B). The value of overpayment

(C). The years(s) the overpayment relates to 

(D) The property address the credit relates to

(E) Whether the account is a live/open account or a closed account

(F)The date that the data was generated

Response provided:

The applicant was informed that the Council does not publish or disclose the details of individual Council Tax accounts with credits against them. Following careful consideration of the ICO decision for Wandsworth Council (FS50619844) and discussions with the Council’s Revenues team which holds this data, the Council considers that disclosure of this data would be likely to prejudice the prevention and detection of crime and therefore the Council considers that this data is now exempt from disclosure under Section 31(1)(a). When applying this exemption, the Council is required to carry out a Public Interest Test which considers the factors that favour disclosure and the withholding of the data:

Factors in favour of disclosure

• Withholding the information could be perceived as the council attempting to retain monies that belong to the public

• It is in the public interest to be open and transparent about its use of public funds

• It is also in the public interest to be transparent regarding the records held in respect of the administration of Council Tax. This could be of interest to the minority of ratepayers who are due a refund, but have somehow failed to receive the notifications that money is owed to them

Factors in favour of withholding

• There is a public interest in ensuring that monies from the public purse, such as rebates on Council Tax accounts, are not fraudulently claimed and also a public interest in not making it easier for fraud to be committed

• The Council’s current verification procedure for refund claims is simple and cost effective however the Council cannot be certain as to whether some claimants are who they really say they are for every refund processed. If the Council were to make this data publicly available then this would ultimately result in additional verification processes needing to be implemented by the Revenues team at additional cost to the public, which would be disproportionate to the benefits that would accrue from disclosure. The additional verification procedures would also be likely to slow the verification process, resulting in detriment to the genuine ratepayer in that it would take longer for their credit to be refunded to them

• In relation to any new verification processes that might be needed, these would be likely to require the production of additional documents by those claiming a rebate which would place a new administrative burden on the majority of those legitimate claimants that did not currently exist. This would be compounded by the fact that the level of scrutiny of those documents would be higher than at present, given the increased suspicion that some of the claims (and associated documents) might well be fraudulent. The result would be that a new verification process would be likely to slow the rate at which Council Tax balance claims could be considered and refunded, causing delay in all refunds and the likelihood of complaints, which would further burden the Council’s limited resources

• Disclosure of the requested information would result in the need to implement disproportionate steps and additional expense to the Council to counter an increased fraud risk

The cost consequences of a successful fraudulent claim would:

• have incurred the cost of paying out to the fraudster

• remain liable to the legitimate rate payer for an equivalent amount, raising the prospect of paying out twice; and

• be faced with the cost (legal and incurrence of internal management time) of seeking to recover the funds wrongly paid to the fraudster

It would not be in the public interest to expose it to such potential costs and expenses, given that they would be funded from the public purse

It is considered that the greater public interest, therefore, lies in not disclosing the data. In coming to that conclusion, the public interest in providing the information has been carefully weighed against any prejudice to the public interest that might arise from withholding the information; in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information

Request reference: FOI 11081

Issue date: 28.01.26

Request received: 

The applicant requested the following information with regards to use of ‘Freeman on the Land’, Sovereign Citizens’ or similar arguments in Council Tax matters  

A. Frequency and Volume

1. How often has your Local Authority received correspondence or enquiries involving 'Freeman' or similar arguments in relation to Council Tax in the past 12 months? (Please indicate whether this is approximately daily, weekly, monthly, every few months, etc)

2. Approximately how many total enquiries of this nature has your Local Authority received over the past 12 months?

3. Has your authority observed any trend (increase, decrease, or stability) in the frequency of such enquiries over the past 5 years?

B. Nature of Arguments

4. Based on your records (e g any template responses, case notes), what are the most common types of arguments presented in this correspondence? (For example: claims about tax being contractual, use of Magna Carta or other historical legal texts, arguments based on ‘common law’ or ‘natural law’, etc)

5. Please provide any example texts or descriptions (redacted if necessary) from correspondence involving such arguments, as reasonably possible within the time and cost limits of the FOI Act

6. Does your authority record whether claimants citing such arguments mention housing, health or financial hardship issues? If so, do individuals making ‘Freeman’ or similar arguments also tend to reference any of these issues?

C. Organisational Response

7. What is your authority’s typical response strategy to this type of correspondence? (For example: standardised template replies, legal escalation, etc)

8. Does your authority have a formal written policy or staff training materials for responding to such arguments? If so, please provide copies or links to the relevant documents

9. Are you aware of any court cases or legal actions involving your authority and individuals citing these arguments in the context of Council Tax? If yes, please provide:

- Number of cases

- Year(s)

- Court(s)

- Outcomes (if known)

D. Operational Impact

10. Has your authority recorded or assessed the level of impact that ‘Freeman’ or similar arguments have had on council operations, particularly in relation to Council Tax administration? If so, please indicate whether the impact has been characterised as minimal, moderate, significant, or otherwise

11. Has your authority logged or documented any operational challenges associated with these types of enquiries (e g high enquiry volume, repeated correspondence, resource strain, complaints, or staff safety issues) If so, please provide details or relevant excerpts from documentation, as reasonably possible within the FOI time and cost limits. Redacted or anonymised material is acceptable

12. Has your authority received or recorded ‘Freeman’ or similar arguments in other service areas (e g parking enforcement, planning, business rates, housing)? If recorded, please indicate the departments or services involved

Response provided:

A. Frequency and Volume - 1, 2 and 3

B. Nature of Arguments - 4, 5 and 6

C. Organisational Response - 9 only

D. Operational Impact – 12 only

This information is not recorded separately and so the only way in which the Council Tax department would be able to respond would require a manual search of more than 50,000 records that fall within the request period of the last 12 months. It is estimated that a minimum of five minutes per record would be required to carry out this search

Section 12 of the Act makes provision for public authorities to refuse requests for information where the cost of dealing with them would exceed the appropriate limit, which for Local Authorities is set at £450 by the Freedom of Information and Data Protection (Appropriate Limit and Fees) Regulations 2004. This represents the estimated cost of one person spending 18 hours at £25 per hour in determining whether the Council holds the information, locating, retrieving and collating the information

It has been estimated by the Council Tax department that it would take well in excess of 4,166 hours to provide the requested information. The procedure would cause serious disruption to the day to day working of the Council Tax department and therefore we are unable to process this part of your request any further. As set out in the previous paragraph, the Council has the right to refuse to provide the information in accordance with Section 12 of the Act

C. Organisational Response

7. Replies are on a case-by-case basis

8. No

D. Operational Impact

10. No

11. No

Request reference: FOI 11084

Issue date: 29.01.26

Request received: 

The applicant requested confirmation of the number of households currently housed in temporary accommodation who were accepted by North Devon Council as having a duty owed to them under s. 193(2) Housing Act 1996, with that acceptance of the main housing duty having taken place before 9th November 2012

Or in other words, a confirmation of the number of households who are currently in temporary accommodation, and have been housed in temporary accommodation for 13 years, 2 months and 21 days as of today’s date, or for longer

For background,  9 November 2012 was the commencement date of ss. 148-149 Localism Act 2011, hence why the request references this date in particular

Response provided:

The Council confirmed at the time of its response (29.01.26) it did not have any households who are currently in temporary accommodation who were accepted by North Devon Council as having a duty owed to them under s. 193(2) Housing Act 1996, with that acceptance of the main housing duty having taken place before 9 November 2012

Request reference: FOI 11086

Issue date: 29.01.26

Request received: 

1. How many closure orders under the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 has the council secured, broken down by the following financial years: 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, 2025?

 2. Of those how many were:

 a) residential addresses

 b) How many were non-residential addresses

Response provided:

1. North Devon Council has not secured any such closure orders within any of the requested years. Whilst the Council is aware of some granted within its area, these were initiated by Devon and Cornwall Police. Therefore, the applicant was directed to request this from the Police direct

2. a) N/A

    b) N/A

Request reference: FOI 11087

Issue date: 30.01.26

Request received: 

The number of meetings that took place within your organisation every year between 2015 and 2026 where attendance was limited by racial group

This of course does not include meetings of an informal nature conducted by employees in their own time

'Limitations' would include advertising the event as open for people of one or more ethnic backgrounds over others

Response provided:

Section 1(1)(a) of the Act requires the Council to inform the applicant whether it holds information of the description specified in their request. The Council considered that it may hold information that it considers may fall within the remit of the request. The Council wishes to make it clear that it does not consider that it has ever held any meetings, either internally or externally where its attendance may have been limited by racial group in any way for the requested period, however, it is unable to categorically answer this with 100% certainty as it does not hold a centralised record of every meeting ever held with their details for the requested period. In discharge of its obligation under section 1(1)(b) the Council confirmed that was unable to answer the request as to do so, firstly, would require a manual search across the whole of the authority of all recorded meetings (as the applicant did not indicated any specific departments or types of meetings that they were interested in) dating back to 2015, where they are physically recorded at the time of this request, both electronically and hard copy, in order to identify if any such meetings recorded that their attendance was limited by racial group

Section 12 of the Act makes provision for public authorities to refuse requests for information where the cost of dealing with them would exceed the appropriate limit, which for Local Authorities is set at £450 by the Freedom of Information and Data Protection (Appropriate Limit and Fees) Regulations 2004. This represents the estimated cost of one person spending 18 hours at £25 per hour in determining whether the Council holds the information, locating, retrieving and collating the information

The Council considers that a search across the whole authority (*apart from the administration of the Council’s formal committees as this explained separately below) would far exceed 18 hours to respond, as the procedure would require all officers currently employed across the Council who have either attended or held meetings for the period sought, to go through all of their records to identify all meetings where they are recorded in some way for the requested period and then determine if any fall within the remit of your request. Those responses would then need to be gathered by representative for each team department and then again, the same process for each Service area in order that I am then able consider further and then go on to determine the Council’s definitive response. This entire process would cause serious disruption to the day to day working of the entire authority as it would distract all officers away from their roles and would also be considered an improper use of officer time; therefore, the Council determines that is unable to process this request any further. As set out in the previous paragraph, the Council has the right to refuse to provide the information in accordance with Section 12 of the Act

*With regard to the Council’s formal committees, where their Agendas and Minutes are published via the Council website, the Council’s Member Services department that responsible for its administration confirms that the Council has not restricted attendance by any racial group over the requested period as set out in the request and confirms that all public meetings have been and will continue to be open for anyone to attend

In accordance with Section 16 of the Act, the Council has a duty to provide advice and assistance to those who seek information from the Council and in this instance the Council informed the applicant that it would be happy to re-consider any revised request that they may wish to submit (to be dealt with under a new FOI) that is focused/narrowed to a specific type of meeting and perhaps sets out some further context/examples of the types of meetings that they are interested in, but that would not require whole of the Council’s meetings records to be manually searched through as explained above