Response 4056853

Response to request for information

Reference

4056853

Response date

6 August 2026

Request

Please treat this email as a request for information under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004. This request relates to planning application 26/00099/FUL, concerning 115 Selby Road, West Bridgford, Nottinghamshire NG2 7BB. Please provide copies of recorded information held by Rushcliffe Borough Council from 1 January 2026 to 3 July 2026 relating to the following categories. 

1. Conservation and heritage assessment. Please provide all internal and external communications, notes, draft comments, file notes and records concerning: 
   • the identification or assessment of 115 Selby Road as a Non-Designated Heritage Asset;
   • the application of paragraphs 9.14 and 9.15 of the Local Plan Part 2;
   • any discussion of resident A, resident B, resident C, resident D, resident E, resident F, group value, or archive material relied upon;
   • any draft, amended or final comments prepared by any conservation officer;
   • any discussion about uploading, not uploading, amending or reissuing Conservation Officer comments on the public planning file.
2. Councillor involvement. Please provide all recorded communications between Councillor D Polenta and/or Councillor Dellar and any planning, conservation, design, landscape, legal or senior Council officer concerning:
   • application 26/00099/FUL;
   • 115 Selby Road;
   • the proposed demolition;
   • the proposed replacement dwelling;
   • the alleged heritage status of the existing dwelling;
   • resident objections;
   • whether the application should be approved, refused, deferred, amended, referred to committee, or determined under delegated powers.
   • Please also provide any direct or indirect communications between Councillors and Conservation Officer concerning the application.
3. Neighbour, resident, third-party lobbying and non-public representations. Please provide all recorded communications, emails, attachments, meeting notes, call notes, internal messages, file notes or case notes involving, referring to, or arising from any neighbour, resident, objector, councillor, residents’ group, amenity group, campaign group, or any other third party seeking to influence the outcome of application 26/00099/FUL. This should include records concerning:
   • any request, lobbying, complaint, objection, meeting, telephone call, informal contact or correspondence seeking refusal, amendment, deferral, committee referral, heritage protection, local listing, tree protection, or any other outcome in relation to the application; 
   • any communication from or on behalf of nearby properties, including but not limited to 113 Selby Road, where the communication relates to the application;
   • any discussion of resident pressure, neighbour objections, local concern, petitions, coordinated objections, or councillor involvement; 
   • any non-public representations or supporting material submitted by residents or third parties and considered by officers but not uploaded to the public planning file; 
   • any communications between residents/objectors and councillors, including Councillor D Polenta or Councillor Dellar, where held by the Council; 
   • any communications between residents/objectors and the Area Team Manager, or any planning, conservation, design, landscape, legal or senior Council officer;
   • any internal discussion about the weight to be given to representations, lobbying or objections from neighbours, residents, councillors or third parties.
4. 113 Selby Road and amenity issues. Given that the refusal reasons rely specifically on alleged impacts upon 113 Selby Road, please provide all recorded information concerning:
   • the approved extension at 113 Selby Road;
   • overshadowing, overbearing impact, privacy, amenity, daylight/sunlight, rear garden impact or rear-facing fenestration at 113 Selby Road;
   • any communications from or on behalf of 113 Selby Road;
   • any internal discussion about whether the proposed dwelling or annexe would impact 113 Selby Road;
   • any diagrams, measurements, assessments or internal notes relied upon when assessing the effect on 113 Selby Road.
5. Internal decision-making, predetermination and refusal. Please provide all internal communications, case notes, draft reports, review comments and sign-off records concerning: 
   • the recommendation to refuse the application;
   • the drafting or amendment of the reasons for refusal;
   • the Area Team Manager’s review of the application;
   • when the recommendation to refuse was first reached;
   • whether the outcome of the application was discussed or indicated before all consultation responses and applicant rebuttals had been considered; 
   • whether further design engagement, amendments, negotiation or a design review meeting should be offered to the applicant or agent;
   • the decision not to engage in further negotiation before refusal;
   • any discussion of whether the application was considered incapable of approval because of the alleged heritage objection;
   • the final authorisation of the refusal dated 3 July 2026. 
6. Conflict, impartiality and declarations. Please provide any recorded information concerning: 
   • any actual, potential or perceived conflict of interest relating to Councillor D Polenta, Councillor Dellar, or any officer involved in the application; any declaration or consideration of interest relating to the application; 
   • any internal discussion of impartiality, bias, officer conduct, councillor involvement, predetermination, procedural fairness or third-party influence including neighbours concerning the application.
   • Please search Council email accounts, councillor Council email accounts, planning case-management systems, document-management systems, Microsoft Teams or equivalent internal messaging systems, meeting notes, telephone attendance notes and internal file notes.

I am not requesting duplicate copies of documents already publicly available on the planning portal, unless those documents contain internal comments, forwarding comments, annotations, additional recipients, draft wording, or information not visible on the public file.
Where information is withheld or redacted, please identify the specific EIR exception relied upon and explain why it applies. Where the exception is subject to a public-interest test, please provide the public-interest reasoning. Where only part of a document is exempt, please disclose the remainder.

Response

1. In so far as your request relates to draft and incomplete documents the Borough Council declines to provide such documents under Regulation 12(4)(d) - Material in the course of completion, unfinished documents, and incomplete data. In so far as your request relates to internal communications the Borough Council declines to provide such document under Regulation 12(4)(e) – a public authority may refuse to disclose information to the extent that the request involves the disclosure of internal communications.  

For both exceptions, the public interest in maintaining the exception has been weighed against the public interest in disclosure.

Factors in favour of disclosure 

• • There is a presumption in favour of disclosure of environmental information held by a public authority
  • There is a public interest in the workings of public authorities being transparent
  • Factors in favour of maintaining the exceptions
  • Disclosure of internal discussions is likely to inhibit the free and frank discussions necessary to proper decision making, leading to an adverse impact on quality of advice and decision making.  
  • Disclosure of incomplete information has the potential to lead to confusion and misinformation
  • Proper decision making relies on published decisions going through a process of discussion, iteration and refinement that would be adversely impacting by the premature release of draft information to the public.  

The Council has determined that the merit in disclosure in this case does not outweigh this public interest in maintaining the exception and this information will not be released.

All formal and complete consultation comments are already published on the online planning file and are therefore specifically excluded from your request.

1. One email from the case officer to Cllr Dellar advising of the receipt of the additional applicants' heritage report is provided, all other engagement with members on this application is already published on the online application file which you have specifically excluded from your request. No other information is held.
2. In respect for this request for any unpublished correspondence between officers and residents, some correspondence exists, however it would not be possible to release this, even if extensively redacted, without revealing personal information relating to the identify of a member of the public which would be protected under GPDR.  The Council relies on EIR Regulation 13 which states a public authority shall not disclose third party personal data if disclosure would contravene the data protection principles in the Data Protection Act 1998 and UK GDPR.  In this case the third parties have not consented to their data being disclosed and therefore the Council will not be making this disclosure.  EIR Regulation 13 provides a complete exception to the presumption of disclosure as no public interest test is required.  

   In respect of Councillor-Resident correspondence, the Council has applied EIR Regulation 3(2) which states: 

   (2) For the purposes of these Regulations, environmental information is held by a public authority if the information—
   (a)is in the authority’s possession and has been produced or received by the authority; or
   (b)is held by another person on behalf of the authority.

   The Councillor’s email accounts contain communication with the Council but also communication that is not held by the Council within the meaning of Regulation 3(2).  This would include correspondence with their constituents and correspondence related to their party business.  This type of information is confidential and has neither been produced or received by the authority. 

3. The planning assessment on your application is set out within the delegated officers report, already published on the online application file which you have specifically excluded from your request. No other documents are held.

4. In so far as your request relates to draft and incomplete documents the Borough Council declines to provide such documents under Regulation 12(4)(d) - Material in the course of completion, unfinished documents, and incomplete data. In so far as your request relates to internal communications the Borough Council declines to provide such document under Regulation 12(4)(e) – a public authority may refuse to disclose information to the extent that the request involves the disclosure of internal communications.  

   For both exceptions, the public interest in maintaining the exception has been weighed against the public interest in disclosure.

   Factors in favour of disclosure 
   •    There is a presumption in favour of disclosure of environmental information held by a public authority
   •    There is a public interest in the workings of public authorities being transparent 
   Factors in favour of maintaining the exceptions
   •    Disclosure of internal discussions is likely to inhibit the free and frank discussions necessary to proper decision making, leading to an adverse impact on quality of advice and decision making.  
   •    Disclosure of incomplete information has the potential to lead to confusion and misinformation about any final decision.
   •    Proper decision making relies on published decisions going through a process of discussion, iteration and refinement that would be adversely impacting by the premature release of draft information to the public.  

   The Council has determined that the merit in disclosure in this case does not outweigh this public interest in maintaining the exception and this information will not be released. 

   The finalised, dated, delegated report which made the recommendation of refusal is already published on the online planning file and are therefore specifically excluded from your request. This document is also signed and dated by the Area Team Manager following review. 

5.  

   The only recorded information is internal correspondence generated following your specific request that managers question a Conservation Officer as to whether she has any undisclosed conflict of interest, that requestion was actioned despite being made without any evidence to indicate any potential conflict existed. No other documentation exists and there is no known conflict of interest which exists, nor has any evidence been supplied to suggest that any conflict may exist. 

Advice and Assistance -EIR Regulation 9

Where there is reference to already published information in this response, the documents can be viewed in the Council’s planning portal by searching under either a description of the land or using the planning reference 26/00099/FUL.  If you are unable to access published documents by this method please contact customer services for assistance.