The First‑tier Tribunal has dismissed an appeal by a resident who argued that a local authority had failed to disclose all information it held in response to an environmental information request relating to a planning condition.
In Anthony Gallagher v The Information Commissioner [2026] UKFTT 569 (GRC), the Tribunal upheld a decision notice issued by the Information Commissioner which found, on the balance of probabilities, that Hart District Council had disclosed all information it held within the scope of the request.
The case arose from a request submitted by Mr Gallagher in February 2024 seeking “all information that [the Council] hold regarding the creation, progress and discharge” of a specific planning condition, excluding documents already available on the public planning portal.
The Council initially handled the request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and disclosed six pages of material. Following concerns raised by Mr Gallagher that information was missing, the Council carried out an internal review and re‑classified the request under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR). It subsequently disclosed additional material and provided links to further publicly available information.
Despite further disclosures made during the Information Commissioner’s investigation, Mr Gallagher maintained that relevant correspondence and records had not been identified and complained to the Commissioner.
In a decision notice issued in September 2024, the Commissioner acknowledged that the piecemeal disclosure of information may reasonably have caused scepticism on the part of the requester. However, having examined the Council’s explanations and search evidence, the Commissioner concluded that it was more likely than not that no further information was held. Mr Gallagher appealed that decision to the Tribunal.
The appeal was heard remotely in December 2025. The Information Commissioner did not attend the hearing, and the Tribunal proceeded in his absence. Mr Gallagher appeared in person.
The Tribunal confirmed that its task was to determine whether, on the balance of probabilities, the Council held additional information within the scope of the request. It emphasised that the test is not one of certainty, noting that public authorities hold vast quantities of information and that absolute assurance is neither required nor realistic.
While the Tribunal accepted that the Council’s initial searches were inadequate, it concluded that subsequent, more detailed searches, particularly those carried out following targeted enquiries by the Commissioner, were sufficient. It was satisfied that the Council had now disclosed all information it held that fell within the scope of the request.
The Tribunal also rejected arguments that shortcomings in the Council’s record retention practices fell within its jurisdiction. It drew a clear distinction between information a public authority does hold and information it ought to hold but does not, noting that the latter may be a matter for other forums but could not found an appeal under EIR.
Mr Gallagher had alleged breaches of multiple EIR provisions, including failures in internal review, advice and assistance, and the duty to make information available on request.
The Tribunal rejected these submissions, finding that the Council’s internal review met the requirements of Regulation 11, notwithstanding the initial misclassification under FOIA. It also held that there had been no breach of the duty to provide advice and assistance under Regulation 9, noting that the appellant was clearly capable of pursuing his request without further guidance.
The Tribunal did, however, acknowledge that the Council had failed to provide all the information it held within the required statutory timeframe, an issue which ahd already been identified in the Commissioner’s decision notice.
In dismissing the appeal, the Tribunal described it as “regrettable” that it had taken so long for Mr Gallagher to receive all the information he was entitled to. Nonetheless, it concluded that no further relevant information was held and that the appeal must therefore fail.
