The General Regulatory Chamber of the First-tier Tribunal has ruled that Braintree District Council was entitled to withhold documents relating to a disputed planning application for a barn complex at Helions Farm.
In Armes v Information Commissioner [2025] UKFTT 1436 (GRC), the appellant, Mr Niall Armes, had sought disclosure of internal emails, draft reports, and legal advice concerning planning application 22/01341/FUL. He argued that the withheld material was necessary to expose alleged bias and predetermination in the Council’s decision-making process.
The Council relied on exemptions under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR) Regulations 12(4)(d) (material in the course of completion), 12(4)(e) (internal communications), 12(5)(b) (course of justice/legal privilege), and Regulation 13 (personal data). The Information Commissioner upheld this position in a Decision Notice issued in May 2025, prompting Mr Armes to appeal.
The tribunal, chaired by Judge Hazel Oliver, reviewed both open and closed bundles of documents. It accepted that while there was a “heightened public interest in transparency” given the history of the site and concerns raised by the parish council, the balance still favoured maintaining the exemptions.
It found that disclosure of the documents around the application risked a “chilling effect” on planning officers, undermining candid drafting. Officers require a protected space to deliberate, particularly with potential appeals or judicial review in prospect.
Legal Privilege attached to counsel’s opinion on the lawfulness of development carried significant weight under Regulation 12(5)(b). Disclosure of that advice would unfairly disadvantage the Council in any litigation.
The tribunal also found that redacted material included sensitive details from applicants and consultees, the disclosure of which would contravene UK GDPR principles.
The Tribunal acknowledged some evidence that could raise public concern - such as the Council’s change of position after receiving counsel’s advice and limited reference to parish objections - but concluded that these factors did not outweigh the strong public interest in protecting the withheld categories of information.
The Tribunal said that Braintree District Council had applied exemptions in a “narrow and targeted way” and was entitled to withhold the information and dismissed Mr Armes appeal in full.
