NPFF planning changes, LCWIP survey, NALC legal questions
Dear Colleagues
this week those councils in Bucks were invited to attend a presentation outlining the proposed NPPF planning changes and the impact locally. Don’t forget that you only have until the Tuesday 24th September 2024 to make your observations on this consultation. This is a Government set consultation and we have had no input or influence to bear on the dates. We are all under pressure here. Bucks Council will be making their submission and we can make our own. You don’t have to answer all the questions, there are quite a few! Please find attached a copy of the presentation slides attached for reference.
Also you can add your voices to the survey on the Buckinghamshire Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan (LCWIP), poster circulated under separate cover to clerks. The consultation is running until 13th October 2024 and can be accessed at www.buckinghamshire.gov.uk/LCWIP.
Here are a selection of legal questions recently asked of NALC.
Do councillors have joint and several liability?
A council wanted our advice on a draft agreement they were presented with, which stated that councillors would have joint and several liability under the agreement. Our advice was that there is no need for such a clause. The council is the body corporate and legal person. We presumed the agreement was the party’s standard agreement and did not take into account the corporate nature of councils. The request also highlighted the importance of councils seeking legal advice when presented with drafts by other parties and not unwittingly signing up to onerous conditions.
Vexatious request vs requester
We have seen recent requests where the council has deemed a freedom of information or subject access request to be vexatious because of the person making the request. We reminded the councils that the FOI regime is purpose and applicant blind. The question is whether the request itself is vexatious rather than the person making the request. The Information Commissioner’s Office has given the following guidance:
- an applicant (requester) does not need to give you a reason for wanting the information. On the contrary, you must justify refusing them information;
- you must treat all requests for information equally, except under some circumstances relating to vexatious requests and personal data (see When can we refuse a request? for details on these). The information someone can get under the Act should not be affected by who they are. You should treat all requesters equally, whether they are journalists, local residents, public authority employees, or foreign researchers; and
- because you should treat all requesters equally, you should only disclose information under the Act if you would disclose it to anyone else who asked. In other words, you should consider any information you release under the Act as if it were being released to the world at large.
Electronic printouts and wet signatures
We were asked if council documents can be stored in electronic format for archive purposes or do they still have to be in held in hardcopy format and if documents previously stored in paper format could be scanned and stored in digital format.
Our in principle advice was that an electronic printout of information would count as a hard copy unless a wet signature is required (e.g. as is the case with council minutes). For documents where wet signatures are not required, electronic records are acceptable. As such, if the historic records have been copied into electronic form then the original documents are not required. Councils may wish to consider offering original documents to local archivists.
Next week our Bio Diversity Seminar commences on Monday morning. We are collaborating with key industry partners to bring you this event which is now sold out, we look forward to seeing you there. We also have our first CiLCA session after the summer recess.
We wish you a fabulous, not frosty, weekend and look forward to speaking with you next week.
Kind regards
Mel Woof PSLCC