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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Review
I am writing to formally request an internal review under Regulation 11 of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004.
I remain dissatisfied with the response, particularly the breadth of the information withheld under Regulations 12(4)(d), 12(4)(e) and 13, the adequacy and specificity of the public-interest assessment undertaken, and whether all information falling within the scope of my request has been properly identified and searched for.
I would ask that the review is undertaken by an officer who was not involved in preparing the original EIR response or determining the planning application, so far as reasonably practicable.
Regulation 12(4)(d) – drafts and incomplete material. The Council has withheld draft and incomplete documents under Regulation 12(4)(d), but the response does not identify which particular documents are being withheld, their status, or why each document falls within this exception. My information request was made after the planning application had already been determined on 3 July 2026. I therefore ask the reviewer to reconsider whether documents described as drafts were genuinely still “in the course of completion”, unfinished or incomplete at the relevant time. The ICO's published guidance makes clear that the existence of a draft does not automatically mean Regulation 12(4)(d) applies. The status of the particular material must be considered. Please therefore:
identify the categories of documents withheld under Regulation 12(4)(d);
confirm whether each document was still actively being worked on at the relevant time;
reconsider whether superseded drafts, earlier versions, officer notes or completed material can properly continue to be withheld;
disclose any material to which Regulation 12(4)(d) does not properly apply.
Regulation 12(4)(e) – internal communications. The Council has also relied upon Regulation 12(4)(e) across substantial parts of the request. I recognise that internal communications can fall within this exception. However, the exception remains subject to the public-interest test and the statutory presumption in favour of disclosure. The reasons provided in the response appear generic, namely that disclosure may inhibit free and frank discussion, cause confusion, or affect the quality of future decision-making. The response does not appear to assess the particular content or sensitivity of the individual communications or explain why disclosure of those specific communications would cause the identified harm. This is particularly significant because the planning application had already been determined when my request was made. The decision-making process to which much of the requested correspondence relates had therefore concluded. I ask the reviewer to conduct a fresh, document-specific public-interest assessment, taking into account:
the planning decision had already been made;
the strong public interest in transparency in the exercise of planning functions;
the disputed identification of the dwelling as a Non-Designated Heritage Asset;
the importance placed upon that issue in determining the application;
the decision not to invite further amendments or negotiations;
the existence of significant third-party representations;
the statutory presumption in favour of disclosure under Regulation 12(2).
If some information genuinely requires protection, please consider whether the remaining material can be disclosed with appropriate redactions rather than withholding entire communications.
Conservation and NDHA decision-making. My request specifically sought the recorded material underlying the identification of 115 Selby Road as a Non-Designated Heritage Asset, including discussion concerning company X, resident, the development history of Selby Road and the criteria in paragraphs 9.14–9.15 of the Local Plan. This is important because the heritage assessment materially evolved during the application.
I am therefore asking the reviewer to reconsider disclosure of the recorded evidence, discussions and analysis which informed that changing position. I am not asking the Council through this EIR review to reconsider the planning merits. I am asking for access to the recorded environmental information explaining how that assessment developed.
Unpublished correspondence with residents. The Council has confirmed that unpublished correspondence between officers and residents exists, but has withheld it under Regulation 13 on the basis that disclosure would identify members of the public. I am not seeking unnecessary personal information such as names, private email addresses, telephone numbers or other identifying details. Please reconsider whether the substantive planning/environmental information contained within those communications can be provided in an appropriately redacted or anonymised form. In particular, even where personal identifiers cannot be disclosed, I ask the Council to consider providing information such as:
the date of the communication;
the Council officer or department to which it was sent;
the planning issue raised;
the substance of any planning representation or evidence submitted;
whether any supporting documents were provided;
any subsequent internal action or consideration arising from it,
to the extent this can be done without disclosing third-party personal data. A blanket withholding of an entire communication should not extend to environmental information which can reasonably be separated from protected personal information.
Information concerning 113 Selby Road. I specifically requested diagrams, measurements, assessments, internal notes and other recorded material relied upon when assessing alleged overshadowing, overbearing impact, privacy and amenity impacts upon 113 Selby Road. The Council's response states: The planning assessment on your application is set out within the delegated officers report... No other documents are held. That is a significant response given that impacts upon 113 Selby Road formed part of the reasons for refusal. As part of the review, please verify the adequacy of the searches undertaken and confirm whether searches included:
the case officer's email account;
Conservation Officer records;
planning case-management records;
Microsoft Teams or equivalent internal communications;
Area Team Manager records;
handwritten/electronic site notes;
telephone attendance notes;
drafts and working documents;
any correspondence with or concerning 113 Selby Road.
If, following those searches, no other recorded assessment, measurement, diagram, daylight/sunlight analysis or internal note exists, please expressly confirm that position as part of the internal review.
Internal decision-making and decision not to negotiate. My request sought communications relating to when refusal was first contemplated, the drafting of refusal reasons, whether further amendments or negotiations should be offered, and the decision not to engage further with the applicant. The Council has withheld this category almost entirely under Regulations 12(4)(d) and 12(4)(e). Given that the final officer report itself records the decision not to engage in negotiations, I consider there to be a substantial public interest in understanding the factual chronology and basis upon which that decision was reached.
Please therefore reconsider whether at least the factual, non-sensitive portions of these communications can be disclosed, including dates, decisions taken and the considerations informing those decisions.
Adequacy of searches. Finally, I ask the internal reviewer to independently satisfy themselves that reasonable and adequate searches have been undertaken across all locations identified in my original request. Where the Council maintains that information is not held, please identify in the review outcome, to a reasonable degree, the systems/accounts searched and the nature of the searches undertaken.
Response
Thank you for your request dated 27 August 2026, in which you asked the Council to review its response to your request for environmental information. I have conducted this review on behalf of the Data Protection Officer, under regulation 11 of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR).I partly uphold your complaint.
The original response correctly identified that regulations 12(4)(d), 12(4)(e) and 13 may apply to information within scope. However, it did not identify the categories of withheld information with sufficient precision, provide a sufficiently information-specific public-interest assessment under regulations 12(4)(d) and 12(4)(e), or adequately explain the searches undertaken and the consideration given to partial disclosure. Those aspects of the original response are therefore not upheld.
I reconsidered the request as it stood when received, the information held at that time, the original response, the grounds of complaint, and the presumption in favour of disclosure under regulation 12(2). I also considered whether information could reasonably be separated and disclosed with appropriate redactions, rather than withholding an entire document or communication.
Information already published on the Council’s planning portal was not reconsidered, in accordance with regulation 6 of the EIR. I have also proceeded on the basis that your request does not include information previously shared with your planning agent.
The review covered the planning case files, site notes, and the digital mailboxes of the planning officer, heritage officer, planning manager, and planning enforcement manager. No searches were undertaken of Councillors’ email accounts.
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 relevant emails are included in the disclosure log. Most other information relating to this issue has either been published or consists of internal communications to which the exception in regulation 12(4)(e) applies.
the application of paragraphs 9.14 and 9.15 of the Local Plan Part 2; The rationale is set out in the published decision notice. Internal discussions relating to the planning decision fall within the exception for internal communications under regulation 12(4)(e) of the EIR.
any discussion of resident A, resident B, resident C, resident D, resident E, resident F, group value, or archive material relied upon; Unpublished discussions involving identifiable individuals engage those individuals’ data-protection rights and fall within the exception in regulation 13 of the EIR.
any draft, amended or final comments prepared by any conservation officer; The final decisions are published. The final decisions are published. The Council considers that incomplete or draft versions of published decision documents fall within the exceptions in regulations 12(4)(d) and 12(4)(e) of the EIR.
any discussion about uploading, not uploading, amending or reissuing Conservation Officer comments on the public planning file. No records relating to this issue were identified during the searches.
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. Please also provide any direct or indirect communications between Councillors and Conservation Officer concerning the application.
Where Councillors act in their public capacity in relation to a planning matter, their unpublished contributions and discussions fall within the exception for internal communications under regulation 12(4)(e) of the EIR.
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.
The information requested in question 3 substantially overlaps with that requested in questions 1 and 2.
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.
Planning approvals relating to third-party properties are published on the planning portal. The report addressing the objections from residents of 113 Selby Road is also published there. Records of internal discussions are withheld under the internal-communications exception in regulation 12(4)(e) of the EIR.
Internal decision-making, predetermination and refusal. Please provide all internal communications, case notes, draft reports, review comments and sign-off records.
The records requested in this section are withheld because they consist of internal communications falling within the exception in regulation 12(4)(e) of the EIR.
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.
The Council has not searched Councillors’ email accounts. Those accounts contain categories of communication unrelated to the Council’s functions, including constituency and party-political correspondence, and it is not practicable to conduct a search confined to Council functions. To the extent that governance-related information falls within the specified search parameters, it consists of internal communications to which the exception in regulation 12(4)(e) of the EIR applies.
The EIR exceptions relied on are:
Regulation 12(4)(d): material in the course of completion, unfinished documents or incomplete data.
The original response applied regulation 12(4)(d) generally to “draft and incomplete documents”. That explanation was insufficient. A document is not covered merely because it is labelled “draft”; the status and purpose of the particular material must be considered, including whether the material itself remained in the course of completion, or constituted an unfinished document or incomplete data, at the date of the request.
On review, I have considered each item separately:
The exception has been applied to drafts or superseded versions of documents that were subsequently finalised and published. Officers must be able to develop, revise and refine their analysis so that the final recorded decision is robust and properly reasoned.
No other category of material in the course of completion, unfinished documents, or incomplete data was identified on review.
Decision: Regulation 12(4)(d) is maintained for the identified items. The fact that the planning decision has been made does not, by itself, determine whether the incomplete documents should now be disclosed.
Public-interest test for regulation 12(4)(d):
Factors favouring disclosure include the statutory presumption in favour of disclosure; transparency and accountability in the exercise of planning functions; enabling the public to understand the evidential development of the heritage assessment and the basis for the refusal; and the fact that the planning decision had been made before the request.
Factors favouring maintenance of the exception include protecting the integrity of the decision-making process by allowing officers to explore, revise and test preliminary views before a final, reasoned decision is published.
On balance, the public interest in transparent planning decisions is substantially served by publishing the final decision and the reasons supporting it. In the circumstances of this case, the public interest in maintaining the exception outweighs the public interest in disclosing drafts of the published decision.
Regulation 12(4)(e): internal communications.
Regulation 12(4)(e) is engaged only to the extent that the information is a communication internal to the Council. It does not cover an external resident’s communication merely because it was later circulated or discussed internally, although a distinct internal forwarding comment or internal discussion may fall within the exception.
The original response correctly identified the exception but did not explain the content and sensitivity of the particular communications or undertake a sufficiently specific public-interest assessment. I have therefore reconsidered each part of the request and identified the categories of information to which the exception applies.
Decision: The documents in the identified categories to which this exception applies are withheld.
Public-interest test for regulation 12(4)(e).
Factors favouring disclosure include transparency in planning decision-making; public understanding of the heritage and amenity assessments; accountability for the decision not to invite further amendment or negotiation; the existence of third-party representations; the completion of the planning determination; and the presumption in regulation 12(2).
Factors favouring maintenance of the exception include the need to protect the quality and candour of internal deliberation. Disclosure of preliminary discussions and exploratory views could inhibit officers and members from considering options fully and openly during the planning process.
Decision: I conclude that disclosure of the identified internal communications would prejudice the effective conduct of the deliberative process that supports sound planning decisions. In this case, the public interest in maintaining the exception outweighs the public interest in disclosure.
Unpublished correspondence with residents: regulation 13.
Regulation 13 applies to third-party personal data where disclosure would contravene the UK GDPR data-protection principles. Once the exception is engaged, no public-interest test applies. However, regulation 13 must be applied only to information that constitutes personal data and not automatically to an entire document.
I reconsidered whether names, contact details, property-linked identifiers and other identifying information could be redacted while allowing reasonably separable environmental information to be disclosed.
Decision: Third parties contributed to the decision-making process through written representations intended for publication. Where requested records concern third parties who are likely to remain identifiable even after direct personal information is redacted, regulation 13 has been applied. Given the local context and the limited group of interested parties, disclosure would be likely to identify individuals and would contravene their data-protection rights.