FI16853

Request

Please provide the following information:

  1. Minutes, notes, agendas, attendance lists, presentations, or any other records relating to the meeting held on 21 July 2025 between Dover District Council, GSE, DHA, and/or Maxim regarding the proposed lorry park and holding area at the Courtwood Junction.
  2. Any feasibility studies, site assessments, or comparative analyses referenced in that meeting or since concerning potential lorry parking locations as near to the Port of Dover as possible. Please provide copies of all such studies.
  3. All meetings, documents, emails, correspondence, or internal notes between Dover District Council, GSE, and DHA relating to the proposed Courtwood lorry park, or any matters arising from or connected to that proposal.
  4. Any feasibility studies, assessments, or reports relating to TAP (Traffic Assessment Protocol) and the potential use of private lorry‑parking sites, submitted to DDC by DHA, GSE, Maxim, or Kent County Council.
  5. Any studies, assessments, or internal reviews undertaken by Dover District Council regarding lorry‑parking need, capacity, or site identification within the Dover district area.
  6. Any communication between Dover District Council and the Port of Dover Police regarding the extension of their authority or operational remit to facilitate traffic management connected to the Port of Dover.
  7. Any communication between Dover District Council and Kent Police regarding the possibility of extending the authority or operational limits of the Port of Dover Police.

Response

We are dealing with your request under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIRs).  The EIRs apply to requests for environmental information, which is a broad category of information defined in Regulation 2 of the EIRs. Public authorities are required to handle requests for environmental information under the EIRs. They give similar access rights to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). 

I can confirm that the Council holds submitted documents and the Council’s written advice in relation to: 

  • pre-application reference PE/25/00089 and related correspondence ("Pre-App 1"); and
  • pre-application reference PE/26/00019 and related correspondence ("Pre-App 2"); 

and correspondence and documents relating to EIA scoping opinion reference 25/01050 ("EIA Documents"). 

The EIA scoping request and the initial scoping decision dated 3 December 2025 and information in respect of the public consultation can be found on the Council's website on the planning portal under reference 25/01050. 

In respect of the pre-application advice, the Council's website states that pre-application submissions are not published as a matter of policy but may be considered for disclosure in response to an FOIA or EIR request. The Council’s approach recognises that disclosure is more likely to be justified where a party making a pre-application enquiry subsequently submits a planning application for the same or a similar scheme, and that in such circumstances the applicant will be contacted and invited to explain how disclosure would affect them. 

In the present case, GSE has not submitted any planning application in respect of either Pre-App 1 or Pre-App 2. The information therefore does not fall within the category of circumstances where disclosure is stated to be more likely. 

The purpose of pre-application engagement is to allow developers and planning authorities to engage in candid, exploratory discussions at an early stage, enabling proposals to be refined, risks identified and Council officer time saved later. Pre-application discussions are by their nature incomplete and iterative. Disclosure of such material at this stage risks public misunderstanding, misinterpretation and confusion, and would undermine both the integrity of the pre-application process and the Council’s ability to provide objective planning advice. 

GSE provided the information in good faith and on the clear understanding that it would be treated as confidential. In its initial email to the Council dated 3 July 2025 in relation to Pre-App 1, GSE expressly requested confidentiality. The Council’s response confirmed that information would be shared only with relevant consultees for the purpose of obtaining advice, reinforcing that understanding. 

Should GSE proceed to submit a full planning application, much of the Information would be published as part of that process in the usual way. However, at the current stage, and particularly given that Pre-App 2 is still ongoing, public access to the information would cause significant commercial disadvantage to GSE and would risk prejudicing the ongoing pre-application process. Early disclosure could also result in a markedly different, and potentially more hostile or intensified, public response, affecting both GSE and the Council and requiring GSE to expend time and resources addressing or explaining proposals that have since been dropped or may never be finalised. 

It is the Council's view that the information requested should be withheld from disclosure under Regulation 12(5)(f) of the EIR Regulations.  Regulation 12(5)(f) protects the interests of the person who provided information to the Council, and it is the Council’s view that the public interest in the exception being maintained outweighs the public interest in the information being disclosed.

Regulation 12(5)(f) of the Regulations states that information can be withheld where its disclosure would have an adverse effect upon:

(f)          the interests of the person who provided the information where that person – 

(i)                  was not under, and could not have been put under, any legal obligation to supply it to that or any other public authority;

(ii)                did not supply it in circumstances such that that or any other public authority is entitled apart from these Regulations to disclose it; and

(iii)              has not consented to its disclosure;

In applying this exemption, the Council has to carry out a public interest test as follows:

Public interest in disclosing the information

The Council acknowledges that there is a public interest in transparency and openness regarding the pre-application planning advice. Disclosure would provide the public with assurances of probity in planning decisions where planning applications are subsequently submitted. However, the Council does not consider there is a public interest in disclosing advice on development proposals which may never come to fruition.

Public interest in refusing the information

The Council considers that there is a public interest in maintaining Regulation 12(5)(f) as developers should be able to discuss initial proposals with the Local Planning Authority in a full and frank matter in order that any potential issues are identified and discussed. The Council believes developers are entitled to ‘thinking space’ when scoping initial plans and to have time to consider any advice from the Council and reconsider their proposal, if necessary. The Council is of the view that it is reasonable for the developer to expect that this can be done privately, without public scrutiny.  If subsequently an application is received for planning permission this will be available for public comment on the Council’s website and the views of those responding to the consultation will be taken into consideration in determining any application. 

I can confirm that GSE have been asked for their views on the release of the information and they have not consented to disclosure.

Therefore, the request for disclosure of the requested information is refused on the ground stated above.

 

Internal Review Documents

Internal Review Request:

The refusal under Regulation  12(5)(f) fails to demonstrate that the harm to the developer’s interests outweighs the public interest in disclosure of environmental information relevant to potential EIA screening and cumulative impacts. The withheld material may concern environmental factors (noise, lighting, traffic, air quality) that fall within the scope of Regulation  2(1)(c) and Schedule  3 of the EIA Regulations  2017. Please note that this area of concern is within the Kent Downs National Landscape as an area of outstanding natural beauty. If the withheld material includes environmental assessments or correspondence about potential EIA screening, it is not “private commercial information” but environmental data that must be accessible. Allowing developers to veto disclosure of environmental scoping undermines the statutory purpose of early environmental consideration under the EIA regime. Please review our request in light of the above information. 
The FOI initial request also included questions that have not been addressed in your response, these are detailed below:

  • Any studies, assessments, or internal reviews undertaken by Dover District Council regarding lorry‑-parking need, capacity, or site identification within the Dover district area.
  • Any communication between Dover District Council and the Port of Dover Police regarding the extension of their authority or operational remit to facilitate traffic management connected to the Port of Dover.
  • Any communication between Dover District Council and Kent Police regarding the possibility of extending the authority or operational limits of the Port of Dover Police

Internal Review Response:

Initially I needed to consider if your request had been dealt with under the correct legislation, that is, the FOIA or the EIR,  and if the information is environmental.  Regulation 2(1) of the EIR defines environmental information, which has already been detailed in the original response to you.  As the information you are seeking relates to planning, this is a ‘measure’ that affects the land and,  I believe, would fall within the description of environmental information under the EIR and therefore considering your request for disclosure under the EIR rather than FOIA is the correct route to take. 

The original response applied regulation 12(5)(f) to the information, upon undertaking this review I also consider the exception contained within regulation 12(5)(e) is also relevant to this data.  Regulation 12(5)( e) states a public authority may refuse to disclose information to the extent that its disclosure would adversely affect the confidentiality of commercial or industrial information where such confidentiality is proved by law to protect a legitimate economic interest 

In considering whether regulation 12(5)(e) is engaged I need to consider the following: 

  • Whether the information is commercial or industrial in nature?
  • If the information is subject to confidentiality provided by law?
  • Whether the confidentiality provided is to protect a legitimate economic interest?
  • Would disclosure adversely affect confidentiality? 

The information that has been withheld comprises of documents submitted to the Council as part of their planning pre-application service.  Considering the four points detailed above, I must conclude that the withheld information is of a commercial nature.  This is because the proposed lorry park and holding area will provide funding and revenue from its operations. 

As advised previously, the information was provided to the Council in support of the application for pre-planning advice and any information the Council provided to the applicant was part of that service.  The information is regarding development proposals, currently not in the public domain.  The applicant would have the expectation that all information would remain confidential, and they have confirmed this in writing.  

I am satisfied there is no requirement within the planning process to publish a submission at the pre-application stage.  The application would be published should it develop into a formal planning application.  It has been generated in circumstances which create an obligation of confidence, the information is not within the public domain and it is therefore subject to confidentiality provided by law. 

In considering whether disclosure of the confidential information would have an adverse affect on a legitimate economic interest, I believe releasing this information into the public domain would provide others with an advantage.  It could provide other organisations or competitors with strategic details, whilst maintaining their own confidentiality around any proposals they may have to develop the area.   This would adversely affect the planning applicant’s own economic interests.  

Finally, I must consider whether disclosure would adversely affect confidentiality.  I can see that disclosure of confidential information into the public domain in advance of a final planning application being received would inevitably cause harm to the confidential nature of the pre-application process.   

Based on the above I must conclude that the Exception with Regulation 12(5) (e) is engaged.  

Regulation 12(5) (e) is subject to the public interest test,  in order to decide whether the information should be withheld. 

I acknowledge there is a public interest in the Council being open and transparent and that providing the information would give the public a greater understanding of matters being considered.  However, pre-planning application advice is not the same as a planning application.  Should the development progress to the planning application stage it would be subject to disclosure and public scrutiny at that point.  I feel this weakens the argument for disclosure relating to transparency at this stage. In addition, disclosure of information provided in confidence as part of the pre-application process would not be in the best interests of the public, as it would negatively impact on the ability of the Council to carry out the process effectively.  It would also deter future developers from approaching the Council for pre-application advice if they fear information could be disclosed into the public domain at such an early stage. 

I therefore conclude there is significant weight in the argument that disclosing pre-application advice would cause prejudice to the confidential nature of the process. Releasing information provided via a process understood to be confidential would potentially affect the Council’s ability to carry out the process in the future which would not be in the public interest. In light of this, I am in agreement with the original decision to withhold the information. 

As previously advised, information relating to the EIA scoping request and the initial scoping decision dated 3 December 2025,  and the public consultation can be found on the Council's website on the planning portal under reference 25/01050.  There are no further documents held.

We do not hold any information relating to ‘Any studies, assessments, or internal reviews undertaken by Dover District Council regarding lorry‑-parking need, capacity, or site identification within the Dover district area’. 

Regarding the final two points, we do not hold this information as this is not within the remit of the District Council.  This would be the responsibility of Kent County Council who manage the highways and transportation.  You would need to direct this element of your request to that authority for any communications they have had with either party.  Kent County Council can be contacted directly via their website at www.kent.gov.uk.