Council have published my home address against my planning objection

Jenni_D

shiraz99 said:

Jenni_D said:

DullGreyGuy said:

ThumbRemote said:
As a result of this objective nature, it actually makes no difference where a comment comes from - a comment from the immediate neighbour is treated just the same as a comment from someone at the other end of the country. The comment is simply judged on its factual merits. There is no reason whatsoever to publish the details of who has made the comments - a comment is either both factually accurate and relevant and is taken into account, the source has no bearing on it. 

But the address is necessary to consider the factual accuracy of many types of objections... someone at the other end of the country, as you put it, would not be factually accurate to complain the new developement will overlook their garden, increase pressure on the local bus they use to commute each day which already they typically cant get on the first 2-3 that pass etc. If they are a few streets away instead the former is almost certainly not true but the later could be. The neighbouring property its possible that both are true.

I don't think the OP is complaining about the Council requiring their address as part of their comment submission - they're complaining about their addressed being published. Of course the Council needs the relevant facts in support of a submission, but they don't need to tell the world who made any such submission.

They do if they want to ensure the process is transparent to all. 

No they don't ... relevant data can be shared under an FOI request if it comes to it. When the Council are considering a planning application there is no reason for an applicant to be told who is objecting to it, just that there are objections in the locality and these are the facts of the objections. Why would an applicant need to know the who? (The Council, yes - but an applicant? To me the only reason would be to allow them to apply pressure on the respondent to withdraw their comment, or to gain retribution another way).

user1977

Jenni_D said:

DullGreyGuy said:

ThumbRemote said:
As a result of this objective nature, it actually makes no difference where a comment comes from - a comment from the immediate neighbour is treated just the same as a comment from someone at the other end of the country. The comment is simply judged on its factual merits. There is no reason whatsoever to publish the details of who has made the comments - a comment is either both factually accurate and relevant and is taken into account, the source has no bearing on it. 

But the address is necessary to consider the factual accuracy of many types of objections... someone at the other end of the country, as you put it, would not be factually accurate to complain the new developement will overlook their garden, increase pressure on the local bus they use to commute each day which already they typically cant get on the first 2-3 that pass etc. If they are a few streets away instead the former is almost certainly not true but the later could be. The neighbouring property its possible that both are true.

I don't think the OP is complaining about the Council requiring their address as part of their comment submission - they're complaining about their addressed being published. Of course the Council needs the relevant facts in support of a submission, but they don't need to tell the world who made any such submission.

They need to make the information publicly available though, even if not published via the online portals. So in that sense it's going to be "published". The council can't gather information as part of their planning decision-making and then keep it secret.

DullGreyGuy

leafy211 said:

DullGreyGuy said:

ThumbRemote said:
As a result of this objective nature, it actually makes no difference where a comment comes from - a comment from the immediate neighbour is treated just the same as a comment from someone at the other end of the country. The comment is simply judged on its factual merits. There is no reason whatsoever to publish the details of who has made the comments - a comment is either both factually accurate and relevant and is taken into account, the source has no bearing on it. 

But the address is necessary to consider the factual accuracy of many types of objections... someone at the other end of the country, as you put it, would not be factually accurate to complain the new developement will overlook their garden, increase pressure on the local bus they use to commute each day which already they typically cant get on the first 2-3 that pass etc. If they are a few streets away instead the former is almost certainly not true but the later could be. The neighbouring property its possible that both are true.

One would assume the council would know the facts, or find them out if they dont,  if they are making these extremely important decisions around planning applications.  Its their duty and what they are paid to do.

But as a public service they must also be transparent. If the address is concealed they could claim that the objections were factually incorrect as the applicant submitted new information in the form of a brown envelope stuffed with paper. By showing the person objecting on the grounds of how busy buses are already when they are 200 miles away we can all see that the rejection was legitimate rather than something else.

leafy211

Jenni_D said:

shiraz99 said:

Jenni_D said:

DullGreyGuy said:

ThumbRemote said:
As a result of this objective nature, it actually makes no difference where a comment comes from - a comment from the immediate neighbour is treated just the same as a comment from someone at the other end of the country. The comment is simply judged on its factual merits. There is no reason whatsoever to publish the details of who has made the comments - a comment is either both factually accurate and relevant and is taken into account, the source has no bearing on it. 

But the address is necessary to consider the factual accuracy of many types of objections... someone at the other end of the country, as you put it, would not be factually accurate to complain the new developement will overlook their garden, increase pressure on the local bus they use to commute each day which already they typically cant get on the first 2-3 that pass etc. If they are a few streets away instead the former is almost certainly not true but the later could be. The neighbouring property its possible that both are true.

I don't think the OP is complaining about the Council requiring their address as part of their comment submission - they're complaining about their addressed being published. Of course the Council needs the relevant facts in support of a submission, but they don't need to tell the world who made any such submission.

They do if they want to ensure the process is transparent to all. 

No they don't ... relevant data can be shared under an FOI request if it comes to it. When the Council are considering a planning application there is no reason for an applicant to be told who is objecting to it, just that there are objections in the locality and these are the facts of the objections. Why would an applicant need to know the who? (The Council, yes - but an applicant? To me the only reason would be to allow them to apply pressure on the respondent to withdraw their comment, or to gain retribution another way).

Completely agree.  And the only other reason I can think why such unecessary detail is published on the WWW is to simply put people off from ever objecting.  Im sure everyone who has commented on this matter would agree that would be an extremely unhealthy outcome!  

DullGreyGuy

Jenni_D said:

shiraz99 said:

Jenni_D said:

DullGreyGuy said:

ThumbRemote said:
As a result of this objective nature, it actually makes no difference where a comment comes from - a comment from the immediate neighbour is treated just the same as a comment from someone at the other end of the country. The comment is simply judged on its factual merits. There is no reason whatsoever to publish the details of who has made the comments - a comment is either both factually accurate and relevant and is taken into account, the source has no bearing on it. 

But the address is necessary to consider the factual accuracy of many types of objections... someone at the other end of the country, as you put it, would not be factually accurate to complain the new developement will overlook their garden, increase pressure on the local bus they use to commute each day which already they typically cant get on the first 2-3 that pass etc. If they are a few streets away instead the former is almost certainly not true but the later could be. The neighbouring property its possible that both are true.

I don't think the OP is complaining about the Council requiring their address as part of their comment submission - they're complaining about their addressed being published. Of course the Council needs the relevant facts in support of a submission, but they don't need to tell the world who made any such submission.

They do if they want to ensure the process is transparent to all. 

No they don't ... relevant data can be shared under an FOI request if it comes to it. When the Council are considering a planning application there is no reason for an applicant to be told who is objecting to it, just that there are objections in the locality and these are the facts of the objections. Why would an applicant need to know the who? (The Council, yes - but an applicant? To me the only reason would be to allow them to apply pressure on the respondent to withdraw their comment, or to gain retribution another way).

So it cannot be published but can be published if an FOI request comes in? How does that make any sense? You'd fine some keyboard warrior submit a request via WhatDoTheyKnow for every single application totally defeating your suggestion

The applicant in particular needs to know who so they can respond to the objections... there are plenty of people that submit false objections and the applicant needs to be able to highlight that X The Street is no way near Y The Street despite being sequential numbers so their claim of being overlooked is false and just a long running personal vendetta.

A neighbour applied for planning permission to build a new property on their garden, a neighbour objected saying they struggled to park their car as it is let alone with a block of 4 new flats. By knowing who it was the applicant could point out the person in question had a 4 car driveway, 2 car garage and actually didn't own a vehicle therefore proving it was a vexatious objection.

Alderbank

In a useful post several pages ago, @mjm3346 posted

...the publication on a Local Planning Authority’s website of individuals’ names and addresses in connection with planning applications is required by article 402 of The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 (si 595). For more details see Appendix 2.
In contrast, the publication of their email addresses, signatures and telephone numbers is likely to be excessive to the task.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2015/595/contents/made

If that is the case then further discussion is academic unless leafy211 can persuade his MP to change the Town & Country Planning Act.

Jenni_D

The T&CP Order is enforced as and how a Council sees fit. For example ... parking companies looking to manage a parking site are required to get Advertising Consent under said Order before they erect signage. (If said signage is greater in area than the limit specified in the Order - which is almost always the case). They also need planning consent.

I expect that the ratio of prior advertising consent to number of parking sites is quite low (based on historical knowledge from the Parking board). Failure to have advertising consent is an unlawful act, but only the Council can prosecute such a case - which rarely happens. (As far as I know the T&CP Order does not give leeway for retrospective consent, but this often happens when a complaint is filed).

So if the requirements of the T&CP Order can be breached in one area, why does it critically matter in another area?  

Alderbank

Jenni_D said:

So if the requirements of the T&CP Order can be breached in one area, why does it critically matter in another area?  

Isn't that like saying 'Other people break the speed limit. Why have you picked on me?'

Jenni_D

Alderbank said:

Jenni_D said:

So if the requirements of the T&CP Order can be breached in one area, why does it critically matter in another area?  

Isn't that like saying 'Other people break the speed limit. Why have you picked on me?'

Ask the Council.  

Nearlyold

Copy of the PAS guidance on Planning and GDPR here if anyone wants to plough through it.

PAS guide to GDPR June 2021 (local.gov.uk)