FI16151

Request

i) Please may I have the dates of the dates of the last six meetings of developer forums  (I believe you  will have those in electronic diaries)

(ii) who attended from DDC (elected and unelected officials  and other stakeholders)  and which developers (including agents, representatives and experts) attended. 

(iii) the venue of such meetings . 

(iv) any unofficial notes or records of the meetings held by officers or elected officials held on paper or electronically . 

Response

Date of Meeting	Venue	Who Attended
23/07/2025	Brave Room, DDC Offices	Head of Planning and Development, Planning and Development Manager, Planning Policy & Projects Manager, Planning Policy Team Leader, Development Management Team Leader (Whitfield and Strategic Sites), Development Management Team Leader (Majors/Minors), Planning Support & Local Land Charges Manager, Senior Planning Technical Officer, Head of Place and Growth, Cllr Edward Biggs (Dover District Council), plus various Major Developers and Agents.  The attendance list is attached.
06/02/2025	Virtual	Head of Planning and Development, Planning and Development Manager, Planning Policy & Projects Manager, Planning Policy Team Leader, Planning Support & Local Land Charges Manager, Senior Planning Technical Officer (Dover District Council) plus various Major Developers and Agents.  The action notes and attendance list is attached.
05/09/2024	Virtual	Head of Planning and Development, Planning and Development Manager, Planning Policy & Projects Manager (Dover District Council) plus various Major Developers and Agents.  The Council does not hold an attendance list for this meeting.
23/04/2024	Billiards Room, Kearsney Abbey	Head of Planning and Development, Planning and Development Manager, Planning Policy & Projects Manager, Planning Support & Local Land Charges Manager, Technical Support Team Leader (Dover District Council) plus various Major Developers and Agents.  The Council does not hold an attendance list for this meeting.
24/04/2023	Virtual	Head of Planning and Development, Planning Policy & Projects Manager, Development Management Team Leader, Development Management Team Leader (Dover District Council) plus various Major Developers and Agents.  The Council does not hold an attendance list for this meeting.
16/01/2023	Virtual	The Council does not hold an attendance list for this meeting.

Minutes are not taken at the meetings.  However, the presentations given at each meeting are attached. 

Please note, all personal has been redacted from the attached documents as this information is exempt from disclosure under Section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act.  Personal data is defined by Article 4(1) of GDPR and also Section 3 of the Data Protection Act 2018 and the release of this data would contravene the data protection principles. 

Attachments

Attachment

Internal Review Documents

Internal Review Request:

I am writing to request an internal review of your decision to redact the names of Dover District Council officials from presentation slides disclosed under my recent Freedom of Information request, citing Section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) and the Data Protection Act 2018.

While I understand the need to protect genuinely private personal data, I believe the redactions on all data fir developer forums in this instance are unwarranted for the following reasons:

1. Officials acting in their official capacity
   The names in question refer to council officers performing their professional duties in an official capacity — specifically, delivering presentations to developers and their agents on behalf of the Council.
   ICO guidance makes clear that “where public officials are acting in their work capacity, the disclosure of their names will normally not breach the data protection principles,” particularly for officers at a senior or public-facing level or where the role involves direct engagement with external stakeholders (see ICO guidance Personal information (section 40 and regulation 13)).
2. Prior disclosure to third parties
   These same names were presented without redaction to external attendees at the relevant meetings, including developers and their agents.
   While I recognise that prior disclosure to a limited audience is not automatically “in the public domain” in the FOI sense, the fact remains that the names have already been shared with individuals outside of the Council. This significantly reduces any reasonable expectation of privacy, especially given that the disclosure was intentional, in a professional setting, and directly related to the officers’ roles.
3. Public interest in transparency and accountability
   There is a clear public interest in knowing which officers are representing the Council in engagements with developers, particularly in the context of local planning policy and development proposals. Such transparency helps to maintain accountability and public confidence in decision-making processes.
   The ICO and the First-tier Tribunal have repeatedly held that, where public officials are engaged in roles involving public-facing decision-making or policy influence, there is often a legitimate interest in disclosure that outweighs any minimal intrusion into privacy (e.g. Roberts v Information Commissioner & DBIS [EA/2009/0035], Hepple v ICO & Durham County Council [EA/2010/0168]).
4. Minimal intrusion and lawful basis
   Disclosure under FOIA would be limited to names only, without any sensitive personal details. The lawful basis for processing under Article 6(1)(e) UK GDPR — “necessary for the performance of a task carried out in the public interest” — clearly applies, given the strong transparency rationale.

For these reasons, I respectfully request that the internal review reconsider the redactions and disclose the names of the officers in question.

Internal Review Response:

The information held was provided,  however the names of those in attendance at the meetings were redacted, under Section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). 

The first consideration is whether the information in question is personal data and secondly, whether the disclosure of that personal data would be in breach of any of the data protection principles.   The definition of “personal data” is that it means data which relates to a living individual who can be identified directly or indirectly from that data.  Based on this, the names of officers clearly constitutes their personal data, as defined by Article 4(1) of the GDPR and Section 3 Data Protection Act 2018, so we need to focus on whether disclosure would be in breach of any of the data protection principles.  

The first principle is the most relevant in this context.  This requires that the processing of personal data must be lawful, fair and transparent.  Disclosing data under the FOIA constitutes processing.  Before disclosing any staff names the first question is whether the disclosure is lawful.  There are six lawful bases for processing in GDPR Article 6, but only consent or legitimate interest are relevant to disclosure under the FOIA.  The alternative lawful basis is that disclosure is “necessary for the purposes of the legitimate interests pursued by the controller (DDC) or by a third party except where such interests are overridden by the interest or fundamental rights and freedoms of the data subject which require protection of personal data.  We need to consider the legitimate interest in disclosure, or what is the purpose.   This includes the legitimate interest of the public authority or a third party, that is yourself, as the requestor.   We then need to consider if it is necessary to disclose staff names for that legitimate interest.   As the position of the officers has been provided, I believe that it is not essential to provide the officer’s names.  

The final consideration is whether the legitimate interest outweighs the interest and rights of the staff concerned.  This requires consideration of the likely impacts or consequences that disclosure of staff names will have on the staff themselves. Although the staff names have been made available to those who attended the meetings, this is to a limited number of people, any disclosure under the FOIA is to “the world at large”.  Once data is disclosed the Public Authority loses control of the information.  Disclosure under the FOIA is not subject to any duty of confidence, which is a relevant factor in deciding whether the disclosure will cause unwarranted harm to the named individuals.  When considering disclosure we have had to consider the reasonable expectations of the staff concerned and if they would have an expectation that their names would be disclosed to the world at large.  In this instance, they were aware their names were included within the presentations, but not that it would be made available for everybody to view.  I therefore must conclude that the original response sent to you was correct in redacting the names under Section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act.