City of Edinburgh Council’s proposed Supplementary Guidance on Developer Contributions and Infrastructure Delivery for City Plan 2030 information: EIR Review

Information requested

Original request - 202500453451

• Correspondence, documents or consultation responses from, or submitted to, the Planning, Architecture and Regeneration Directorate by any other Scottish Government department or directorate, public authority or local authority providing their consideration of the City of Edinburgh Council’s proposed Supplementary Guidance on Developer Contributions and Infrastructure Delivery for City Plan 2030.
• Any internal Planning, Architecture and Regeneration Directorate correspondence or documents, between officials, including but not limited to emails, notes and minutes of meetings, comments and draft documents including track changes, detailing their consideration of the City of Edinburgh Council’s proposed Supplementary Guidance on Developer Contributions and Infrastructure Delivery for City Plan 2030 and why it could not be adopted.

For the avoidance of doubt, correspondence should include but is not limited to emails, letters, agenda notes and minutes of meetings, comments and draft documents including track changes, modelling and calculations or any document which is a) held by the Scottish Government and b) related to the guidance and its consideration between 13 December 2024 and 3 February 2025.

Response

Further to my letter of 18 March 2025, I have now completed my review of our response to your request under the Environmental Information (Scotland) Regulations 2004 (EIRs) for:

"...the following information:

• Correspondence, documents or consultation responses from, or submitted to, the Planning, Architecture and Regeneration Directorate by any other Scottish Government department or directorate, public authority or local authority providing their consideration of the City of Edinburgh Council’s proposed Supplementary Guidance on Developer Contributions and Infrastructure Delivery for City Plan 2030.
• Any internal Planning, Architecture and Regeneration Directorate correspondence or documents, between officials, including but not limited to emails, notes and minutes of meetings, comments and draft documents including track changes, detailing their consideration of the City of Edinburgh Council’s proposed Supplementary Guidance on Developer Contributions and Infrastructure Delivery for City Plan 2030 and why it could not be adopted.

For the avoidance of doubt, correspondence should include but is not limited to emails, letters, agenda notes and minutes of meetings, comments and draft documents including track changes, modelling and calculations or any document which is a) held by the Scottish Government and b) related to the guidance and its consideration between 13 December 2024 and 3 February 2025."

I have concluded that the original decision should be confirmed, with modifications.

Having reviewed the information within the scope of the request, I can confirm that we are able to release more information than originally provided to you. I enclose revised copies of the below documents:

• Document 2: CEC’s Notice of Intention to Adopt and issue Supplementary Guidance - Name of Minister released
• Document 3: Planning Committee Action Sheet Addendum – Names of Councillors and external senior official released
• Document 4: CEC SG Notice of Intention to Adopt, PARD circulation email for comments – Names of team mailboxes released
• Document 5: CEC SG Notice of Intention to Adopt, Transport Scotland initial reply – Further email in chain released
• Document 6: CEC SG Notice of Intention to Adopt, Transport Scotland response – Earlier email in chain released
• Document 13: CEC SG Notice of Intention to Adopt Direction, Submission email to Minister – Name of team mailbox released
• Document 14: CEC SG Notice of Intention to Adopt Direction, Submission to Minister – Information regarding financial considerations and New Deal for Business implications released

I also enclose copies of documents not previously provided:

• Document 15: Correspondence between PARD officials regarding CEC SG Notice of Intention to Adopt
• Document 16: Correspondence between PARD officials regarding CEC SG Notice of Intention to Adopt
• Document 17: Emails seeking and providing clearance to send submission to Minister for Public Finance

However, while our aim is to provide information wherever possible, we are unable to provide all of the information you have requested, and some information has still been withheld from the documents listed above. The reasons for this are explained in the Annex to this letter.

I would, however, like to assure you that when handling your request I have considered the information within the scope of the request with a strong presumption in favour of disclosure. Each document has been reviewed on a line by line basis and exceptions have only been applied where necessary.

ANNEX A

REASONS FOR NOT PROVIDING INFORMATION

Personal information
An exception under regulation 11(2) of the EIRs (personal information) applies to documents 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17 because some of the information requested is personal data and disclosing it would contravene the data protection principles in Article 5(1) of the General Data Protection Regulation and in section 34(1) of the Data Protection Act 2018. This exception is not subject to the ‘public interest test’, so we are not required to consider if the public interest in disclosing the information outweighs the public interest in applying the exception.

Whilst I note that you are unsatisfied with the amount of personal data that had previously been withheld, I should make it clear that all staff have the right to expect an appropriate degree of protection, dependent on factors such as seniority, responsibility and business area. Decisions about releasing the names of officials are taken by a risk-based approach, balancing the legal right to information provided in the EIRs with the Scottish Government’s duty of care for the welfare of its staff and for the integrity of the civil service as a corporate body. The Scottish Information Commissioner makes it clear that the disclosure of names of public authority employees should be considered on this basis, therefore when considering this request for review, I have deemed it appropriate for the names of Senior Civil Servants and those of equivalent external positions to be released, however have withheld the names of more junior members of staff.

Internal communication
An exception under regulation 10(4)(e) of the EIRs (internal communications) also applies to documents 5, 14, 15, and 16 because some of the information requested is internal discussion between officials and advice to Ministers on CEC’s Note of Intention to Adopt Supplementary Guidance.

This exception is subject to the ‘public interest test’. Therefore, taking account of all the circumstances of this case, we have considered if the public interest in disclosing the information outweighs the public interest in applying the exception. We have found that, on balance, the public interest lies in favour of upholding the exception. We recognise that there is some public interest in release as part of open, transparent and accountable government, and to inform public debate. However, there is a greater public interest in allowing a private space within which officials can discuss and provide free and frank advice and views to Ministers. Ministers and officials need to be able to consider all available options and to debate those rigorously, to fully understand their possible implications. Disclosing the content of such advice and discussions would substantially inhibit the free and frank provision of advice and exchange of views in the future, particularly while discussions are ongoing and decisions have not been taken.

I can also confirm that the application of the exception under regulation 10(4)(e) of the EIRs (internal communications) was correct in regards to information requested containing legal advice. This is because the disclosure of internal legal advice would breach legal professional privilege.

This exception is subject to the ‘public interest test’. Therefore, taking account of all the circumstances of this case, we have considered if the public interest in disclosing the information outweighs the public interest in applying the exception. We have found that, on balance, the public interest lies in favour of upholding the exception. We recognise that there is a public interest in disclosing information as part of open, transparent and accountable government, and to inform public debate. However, this is outweighed by the strong public interest in maintaining the right to confidentiality of communications between legal advisers and clients, to ensure that Ministers and officials are able to receive legal advice in confidence, like any other public or private organisation.

About FOI

The Scottish Government is committed to publishing all information released in response to Freedom of Information requests. View all FOI responses at https://www.gov.scot/foi-responses.

EIR 202500457744 - Information Released - Documents

File type

PDF

File size

4.4 MB