The First-tier Tribunal has upheld an Information Commissioner’s decision allowing Bradford Council to refuse a wide ranging request for environmental information about two high risk reservoirs, finding that the cost of compliance would be “manifestly unreasonable”.
In a judgment issued on 5 March 2026, Judge Swaney and tribunal members Cosgrave and Taylor dismissed the appeal brought by local resident Colin Duke against the ICO’s September 2025 decision notice. The tribunal concluded that Bradford Council was entitled to rely on regulation 12(4)(b) of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR), which permits refusal where a request is “manifestly unreasonable”.
Mr Duke had sought detailed information in September 2024 relating to two reservoirs near a proposed 180 home development. He argued that the local community needed clarity on the condition of the dams and the risk of flooding. Bradford Council disclosed some information but withheld the remainder under regulations 12(5)(a) (public safety) and 13 (personal data). During the ICO investigation, the Council added reliance on regulation 12(4)(b).
The ICO agreed that the request was manifestly unreasonable and did not go on to consider the other exemptions.
Mr Duke then advanced a series of procedural and substantive challenges, including claims that:
• the Council acted unfairly by introducing a new exemption late;
• the ICO had no authority to invite reliance on regulation 12(4)(b);
• the Council misunderstood the scope of his request, which he said was limited to the statutory “public form of record” under the Reservoirs Act 1975; and
• the cost estimate was flawed and unsupported.
The tribunal rejected each point. It found no procedural unfairness, holding that the Commissioner “can consider exemptions not applied by the public authority” and that nothing prevented the Council from raising regulation 12(4)(b) during the investigation.
Crucially, the panel determined that Mr Duke’s request was not limited to the public register. Although he insisted that he only wanted the short form statutory record, the tribunal noted that his written request expressly sought “copies of any Inspection, Reports, Certificates” and that the Council was entitled to treat six technical reports - totalling around 230 pages - as within scope.
Cost of compliance decisive
The Council estimated that reviewing the material would require 57.5 hours of officer time, at a cost of £1,437.50. Even halving the estimate would still exceed the FOIA based benchmark of 18 hours. The tribunal accepted that specialist review was necessary because the reports contained sensitive engineering information and personal data, some marked “Official Sensitive”.
“For all of these reasons, we find that the cost of complying in full with the appellant’s request would be onerous,” the panel concluded.
The tribunal carried out its own public interest test and found that although reservoir safety is a matter of legitimate public concern, the burden on the Council outweighed the case for disclosure. It also noted that Mr Duke had already received confirmation that a watercourse was blocked—one of his key concerns—and that he remained entitled to inspect the statutory public register in person.
The tribunal held that the presumption in favour of disclosure did not tip the balance and dismissed the appeal, upholding the ICO’s decision in full.
